Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20 June], That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendments.

Lords amendments agreed to.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

To be considered on Monday 25 June at Seven o'clock.

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL. (By Order)

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

To be considered on Thursday 28 June.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 28 June.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 28 June.

Mr. Speaker: As all the remaining private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 28 June.

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],
That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 28 June.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 28 June.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [10 May],
That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 28 June.

SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 28 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Cross-border Security

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Irish Prime Minister to discuss cross-border security.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I called briefly on the Taoiseach when I visited Dublin on 28 May. The usual forum for discussing cross-border security issues is, however, the Anglo-Irish Conference, the last meeting of which took place on 19 April. A copy of the joint statement issued after that meeting has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that terrorism will be defeated only when there is no haven for terrorists anywhere in Ireland? In view of that, will he raise with the Irish Prime Minister the failures of the Republic in respect of extradition?

Mr. Brooke: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept an amendment to his statement. Terrorism will be defeated only when there is no safe haven for terrorists anywhere. On the second part of his question, we discussed extradition at great length at the Anglo-Irish Conference on 19 April, as a result of which a working party of officials was set up to discuss and review the present provisions against terrorism.

Mr. Maginnis: Would not it be better if those who talk about cross-border security were advised to regard it in cross-frontier terms? That would bring home to them the international aspect of terrorism and perhaps prompt them to think about the lack of co-operation on extradition between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic and West Germany. Why should hon. Members believe that there is any difference in attitude between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland in terms of the land frontier between north and south when we see what happens in the courts of the Irish Republic?

Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's question, but the heart of the problem lies in the legislation rather than the action taken by the courts. We regard the Irish judiciary as independent in the same way as we hope that the Republic regards our judiciary as independent. The working group of officials will consider the legislation.

Mr. Dykes: I hope to remain meticulously in order, Mr. Speaker, but I should say that an explosion took place at an air force base in my constituency this morning. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that it is important to have further discussions with the Ministry of Defence about cross-border security in Northern Ireland and security on the mainland? We must ensure that there is increasingly effective co-operation with the Irish Republic on those matters in view of the obvious connection between IRA terrorism in the island of Ireland and the recent explosions on the mainland. Fortunately, in my constituency there were no casualties.

Mr. Brooke: I entirely appreciate why my hon. Friend raises the sad event that occurred in his constituency today. We must all be grateful that no serious inuries arose. The security of defence bases is more a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and, of course, I shall draw his attention to it.

Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State rightly said that there should be no safe haven for terrorists anywhere, so will he ask his right hon. Friends to raise with the Trevi group the possibility of a criminal law jurisdiction agreement for the Community? We would then be able to avoid the confrontations that occasionally arise between the Irish and British Governments on extradition. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that there are a lot of other places where people have been awaiting extradition for a long time—three IRA suspects in France are awaiting extradition to West Germany. It is important to remember that the problem is not one between us and the Republic of Ireland, but is a European one, and it should be dealt with on that basis.

Mr. Brooke: I read with interest the article that the hon. Gentleman contributed the other day along those lines. All suggestions as to how we achieve greater collective co-operation against terrorism are valuable and no doubt the Trevi group will consider suggestions such as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Cultural Heritage

Dr. Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to develop the cultural heritage of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Last year I introduced the cultural traditions programme aimed at promoting the greater understanding and appreciation of the shared cultural heritage of Northern Ireland and of its diversities. The budget this year is about £1·4 million.
In addition, as part of education reform in Northern Ireland, cultural heritage will be taught as a compulsory cross-curricular theme. The key aim is to enable pupils to know about, understand and evaluate the diverse and distinctive aspects of their cultural heritage.

Dr. Woodcock: Does my hon. Friend agree that that programme and those which I hope he will introduce in the future can make a significant contribution to breaking down the alienation between the two communities?

Dr. Mawhinney: Many people would agree that it is unfortunate that aspects of Northern Ireland's cultural traditions have become politicised. There is much to be gained through understanding and appreciating the richness of the cultural diversity in Northern Ireland, and we are seeking to promote that.

Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister assure us that the programme will pay due regard to the cultural heritage of the majority of people in Northern Ireland? The Ulster museum is currently putting on an exhibition entitled "Kings in Conflict" which helps to repair the serious omissions caused by the political censorship of the exhibition held in London in 1988. Will he take steps to cover the financial loss with which the Ulster museum is threatened which is almost entirely due to the failure of the museum in Dublin to honour its undertakings to show the exhibition there, too?

Dr. Mawhinney: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. As to the second part, we are already involved in helping to support the "Kings in Conflict" exhibition.

Mr. Kilfedder: May I congratulate the Minister on the community funding? He is aware that much needs to be done to promote a greater interest in the cultural heritage of Northern Ireland which, together with the rest of Ireland, is intermingled with that of Britain and Scotland. That has been so throughout the centuries and even before Christian times—St. Patrick was not the first Brit to go to Ireland. Does he agree that the more people become aware of that rich cultural heritage, the closer together people will come in Northern Ireland? Perhaps that closeness would also be shared between the people of Ireland and Britain.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind personal remarks. I entirely agree with his analysis and appreciate his support for a variety of cross-community and cross-cultural activities over the years.

North Eastern Education and Libraries Board

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of the North Eastern education and libraries board to discuss educational provision.

Dr. Mawhinney: The last formal meeting was on 28 April 1989.

Mr. Barnes: Why are community workshops and training centres in Northern Ireland being forced out of the further education college sector? The North Eastern education and libraries board has announced the redundancy of 26 college lecturers. Should not there be proper consultation with the college lecturers so that their redeployment can be considered, the whole issue discussed and, even better, the crazy plan dropped?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman has the first part of his supplementary question slightly wrong in that the


provision of training for young people is being discussed. There has been a considerable variation in colleges in quality of training and in the cost of youth training programme places, ranging from £2,000 to £7,000, although not related to quality.
The hon. Gentleman talks about 26 redundancies in the North Eastern board. I pay tribute to the board as one of the five in Northern Ireland which do an excellent job delivering education in schools and further education colleges. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, following consultation, there will not be 26 forced redundancies. Through natural wastage, redeployment and voluntary early retirement, there are likely to be only two redundancies.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister aware that tonight on "Spotlight" there will be an exposure of a very serious matter that has arisen at the Derry youth and community workshop, headed by Mitchell M'Loughlin, one of the leaders of the IRA Sinn Fein, where £25,000 has gone missing this year? Will the Minister make a statement about that?

Dr. Mawhinney: I was not aware of that programme.

Mr. Beggs: As a former chairman of the North Eastern board, I welcome the interest that hon. Members are showing in it. Does the Minister agree that the board enjoys a high reputation with the teachers' unions for the sympathetic way in which it, with the support of the Department of Education, has dealt with redundancies?
Will the Minister also join me in advising employers in Great Britain and elsewhere who face shortages of highly skilled graduates, technicians and a well-educated work force, that the North Eastern board and we in Northern Ireland have been preparing our young people to meet the challenges of not only 1992 but the 21st century?
Will the Minister ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to urge the Industrial Development Board and other agencies associated with seeking inward investment to use the open invitation from the North Eastern board to them and their clients to visit our schools and colleges and see the skills and levels of achievement of all our young people?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the good relationship between the North Eastern board and the schools and colleges in its area and the good practice there, some of which was established under his distinguished chairmanship.
I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in pointing out to the rest of the United Kingdom the high quality of training which we believe will be enhanced by the new arrangements, and the opportunity not only for Northern Ireland young people to go to England, Scotland and Wales for jobs but for Great Britain firms to invest in Northern Ireland and make use of the skilled work force and the amenities there.
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that within the past 48 hours the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and I have discussed the invitation to firms to visit schools in the North Eastern board area.

Mr. Alton: I congratulate the Minister on the additional provision that he has made for the Irish language in each of the five boards in Northern Ireland. What plans does he

have to extend Irish language provision throughout the Province and what discussions is he currently having with representatives on that important matter?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. The position of the Irish language is safeguarded in the education reform new curriculum proposals in Northern Ireland. In addition, as part of the cultural heritage and cultural traditions programme, extra money has been made available to the Ultach Trust, which is seeking to develop the Irish language in Northern Ireland in its cultural context. I welcome that, because, as with a number of other subjects in Northern Ireland, these issues should be removed from the political arena and put back in the cultural affairs arena where they belong.

Security

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation.

Mr. Brooke: Since I answered a similar question on 10 May 1990, there have been three deaths arising from the security situation in Northern Ireland. Mr. Patrick Boyle, a civilian, was murdered at his home by so-called loyalists, while Mr. James Sefton, a retired member of the RUC reserve, and his wife Ellen were killed in an under-car booby-trap attack carried out by republican terrorists. The whole House will join me in condemning those cowardly and brutal crimes.
However, large amounts of arms and explosives have been recovered, and in the first four months of this year the numbers of people charged by the police and convicted by the courts have increased over the same period in 1989.

Mr. Brown: We all abhor that carnage, but the Minister must know that there can be no solution in Ireland, particularly to the security issue, unless there is a political solution. There must be some movement towards that end, so will he consider withdrawing—perhaps on a phased basis—troops from Northern Ireland, especially Scots troops? [Interruption.] That would be helpful.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to maintain peace he should encourage worker defence squads—[Interruption.] —composed of Catholics and workers. If he cannot accept that—for reasons which I understand—what about a United Nations peace-keeping force coming into the Province to control the situation? [Interruption.] That would give some credibility to the hope that one day the north will return to its normal place in political life and that both communities can act together against orange and green bosses.

Mr. Brooke: The work of the security forces must be complemented and reinforced by effective political, economic and social policies. In that sense I concur with the hon. Gentleman's remarks that political development is desirable.
As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's long question, although I do not question for a moment the sincerity with which he made his points, the reception that they got from the House suggested that not many hon. Members were in sympathy with him.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the Secretary of state given any attention to the threat issued in Bodenstown by Gerry Adams, the IRA Sinn Fein leader, and others, who said on Sunday that if there was any political progress in Northern Ireland towards devolution they would fiercely oppose it with all the power at their disposal? Does not that give the lie to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) that political discussions would bring IRA activities to an end?
What does the right hon. Gentleman think about "hot pursuit", which has been repudiated by the Taoiseach at a conference held with European Ministers?

Mr. Brooke: I believe that the words of Mr. Adams which the hon. Gentleman quoted show the contempt of the IRA and of Sinn Fein for political development without the use of violence. They also show the significance in Mr. Adams' mind of violence in the conduct of political affairs.
"Hot pursuit", which has arisen in the context of other European conversations because of other treaties that have been passed, is a subject which the Government will continue to keep on the agenda, but it requires discussion with the Government of the Republic.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that there has been a sad toll of carnage over 22 years, often resulting in the tragic loss of life of wholly innocent bystanders? Will he explain to the House any new initiative that is likely to end this carnage? Does he accept that outside the House there is widespread support for the phased removal of troops? Does he agree that all parties must be involved in negotiations to achieve that, even though I share the Government's reluctance to deal with some organisations? He should remember that in the case of Zimbabwe the Government overcame their reluctance to negotiate with Robert Mugabe and that led to a peaceful settlement at Lancaster house.

Mr. Brooke: The overriding task of the Government in Northern Ireland is to defeat terrorism from whichever side of the community it comes. I said in answer to the question by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) that the work of the security forces must be completed and reinforced by effective political, economic and social policies. The hon. Gentleman spoke about widespread support outside for the phased withdrawal of British troops. I do not think that he would find support for that proposition among those who look at these issues strategically. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's final proposition, I can tell him that the Government have made it clear that they have nothing to say to Sinn Fein while it continues to espouse violence.

Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chorus of calls from the Opposition for the withdrawal of soldiers from that part of the United Kingdom called Northern Ireland will only give encouragement to the IRA? Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House why, four and a half years after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, he has still not been able to reach an understanding with the Government of the Irish Republic which would give to the

police and army in the Republic the right to pursue terrorists into the north and a similar right to our security forces to pursue suspected terrorists into the south?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial observations with which I concur. In negotiations conducted under the agreement and within the conference on cross-border security arrangements, there are issues on which we can and have reached agreement with the Government of the Republic about cross-border activity. As I said in answer to an earlier question, we continue to pursue those subjects.

Mr. Hume: Given the knee-jerk and ill-informed reactions which we have again seen in the House today in relation to extradition from the Republic of Ireland, will the Secretary of State make clear the precise difference between the law on extradition in this country and that in the Republic of Ireland?
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the killings and the statements of regret by those who support the IRA about some of those killings. Does he recall my statement on 1 January that over the past 20 years 55 per cent. of all the people killed were innocent civilians going about their business and were the victims of so-called mistakes or tit-for-tat killings? The people who carry out that campaign know that one out of every two people that they kill will be an innocent civilian. They should be told that by everybody in the clearest possible terms. There is not a single injustice in the north of Ireland that justifies the taking of single life.

Mr. Brooke: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he is right to suggest that the legislation in both countries derives from the convention. There are some differences in terms of the precise interpretation placed upon the legislation and that is one reason for the employment of the working group. The hon. Gentleman mentioned tit-for-tat killings. I think that every hon. Member will endorse what he said about that.

Mr. Bellingham: Further to the remarks of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), does my right hon. Friend agree that we must try to aim for a position in which there is no need for extradition between EEC member states?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend opens an attractive vista. It may be too large to take in at first glance, but I shall return to it.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister confirm, as he told me by letter, that a more extensive use of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act 1976 may well be applicable? What are the Government doing to put that into effect? Does he agree, as I think that he has also said, that the useful proposals put forward by the Progressive Democrats, the Government coalition partner, on how extradition legislation might be differently applied in the Republic, are helpful and constructive, and that the Government would be better advised to support those proposals than to indulge in another exercise of megaphone diplomacy?

Mr. Brooke: On the right hon. Gentleman's first question, I confirm what I said in correspondence. With regard to the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, we consider carefully, on a case-by-case basis, the particular provisions that we might use in every case that we handle in conjunction with the Irish authorities.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the security situation would be infinitely worse if it were not for the supreme professionalism of our armed forces in Northern Ireland, and the professionalism and, in many cases, heroism of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brooke: I warmly welcome my hon. and learned Friend's words. Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom owe a great debt to the security forces for the manner in which the Northern Ireland community has been protected and has been allowed, in so far as has been possible, to live a normal life over the past 20 years.

Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State will be aware that Her Majesty's Opposition support the use of the Army in Northern Ireland for as long as it is necessary to support the civil power in upholding the rule of law and to see that that is done impartially. Therefore, we should welcome the withdrawal of troops as a signal of an improvement in the situation in Northern Ireland, but until that time arises the Army must be present to support the work of the RUC.

Mr. Brooke: Again, the House will be grateful to the Opposition spokesman for making clear the official Opposition's position on that matter.

Electricity Supply (Rathlin)

Miss Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to provide mainland electricity supply for the island of Rathlin in County Antrim.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): Northern Ireland Electricity is presently giving active consideration to the matter.

Miss Hoey: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the proud island community of Rathlin has made enormous efforts to preserve its way of life and survival on the island. Does he further agree that there has been much talk, consultation and surveying, but little action to bring mainland electricity supply to Rathlin? When will he recognise that the people of Rathlin island deserve the same amenities and services as those living in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Needham: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady says. There has been too much talk and too little action on the matter. NIE has appointed a project manager and within the next couple of months we shall have worked out the best way of getting electricity to the island. We must also consider the capital cost and who will pay for it. We shall try to find ways of spreading the cost as widely as possible to prevent the islanders bearing too large a proportion of it and without making it uneconomic. I am determined to do everything that I can to bring the matter to a conclusion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister aware that there were 1,000 people in Rathlin at the turn of the century but that there are now only 100? Is it his policy to keep people on the island of Rathlin? If so, will he stop setting up projects and take action so that they can have the facilities that they deserve, in the same way as any other part of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Needham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constituency interest in the matter. As I told the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), of course I want to keep people on the island and to enable them to enjoy the quality of life that is available throughout the rest of Northern Ireland. That is what I am trying to achieve.

Fair Employment

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to implement the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

Mr. Needham: The Fair Employment Commission and the Fair Employment Tribunal are both in operation, and encouraging results have been achieved both in the registration of employers and in the provision of their first monitoring returns.

Mr. Loyden: The Minister will be aware that discrimination in employment contributes to division in any community, but particularly in Northern Ireland. In view of the success that has been achieved with registration and monitoring, when will the Minister be able to make his first report to the House?

Mr. Needham: The monitoring phase will be completed in the next couple of months and we shall make the results available as soon as we can. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The 1989 Act is in place and is working, and employers and employees are responding to it. I am sure that the atmosphere that it is creating will make it easier for all of us who are working together to attract more investment and jobs to the Province.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Minister realise how important it is that the information given by people to the Fair Employment Commission remains confidential? Was he disturbed to read, as I was, an article by Chris Ryder in a national newspaper saying that he had obtained access to the contents of a confidential investigation report by the Fair Employment Commission? As it is vital that such information is kept confidential, will the Minister order an inquiry, even to the extent of employing the RUC, to ask questions of the person in charge, Mr. Bill Cooper, and of his staff?

Mr. Needham: I agree that if the 1989 Act is to work properly, confidential information must be kept confidential. I shall raise with the commission the matters that the hon. Gentleman has brought to my attention.

Human Rights

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): Human rights are already well protected in Northern Ireland, but we are always willing to consider proposals for strengthening existing safeguards.

Mr. Ross: Will the incorporation of the international convention on human rights in Northern Ireland legislation appear on the agenda of any of the three parallel discussions that the Minister hopes to have in the autumn?

Mr. Cope: That is possible, but as no agenda have yet been decided, I cannot guarantee that. The European convention on human rights establishes the right of individual petition, and so on, which the Government accept. Most of the rights that it contains are incorporated in our legislation.

Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the most important human right to be protected in Northern Ireland is the right not to be blown up or murdered by IRA terrorists?

Mr. Cope: I absolutely confirm that. The worst violation of human rights is that done to the victims of terrorists.

Mr. Molyneaux: Given that for the past 18 years Northern Ireland has been governed and administered entirely by Ministers accountable to this House, what is the need for protecting human rights in Belfast as opposed to Birmingham?

Mr. Cope: I am not sure of the distinction that the right hon. Gentleman draws. We do our best to legislate to ensure that human rights are protected.

Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the fact that the Minister has told the House that human rights are well protected within Northern Ireland, and accepting that the greatest human right to be protected is the right to live, will the Minister tell the House why it is that an increasing number of contractors in my constituency are daily threatened by the IRA, why men are forced into unemployment, why bombs are put under employees' cars, and why people are slaughtered? Is not it time that the Government brought the nightmare of terrorism to an end, so that the people of Ulster can enjoy the right to live?

Mr. Cope: We fight terrorism in all its forms, and I particularly deplore the terrorism aimed against contractors, to which the hon. Gentleman draws our attention. We are taking every step that we can to bring it to an end.

Community Workshops

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Association of Community Workshops to discuss provision of community workshops.

Mr. Needham: I shall meet representatives of the community workshop network at a conference in mid-October.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that there is growing concern among community workshop managers that the Government foresee a diminishing role for them in the provision of youth training? Does the Minister agree that there is an increasing need for a more varied and higher-quality provision of youth training? When he next meets representatives of the association, will he take the opportunity to give them a categorical assurance of his commitment to them, and of their positive role in providing training?

Mr. Needham: I do not have to wait to meet the association; I can give the hon. Gentleman and the community workshop managers that assurance now. Community workshops in Northern Ireland do a very

good job, but they have been expensive providers. They have not provided some of the qualifications that we would have looked for in training throughout Northern Ireland and some workshops are more expensive than others. We are looking for value for money, and increased, wider training. To that end, we shall support the workshops in evey way possible. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I refer to the corporate plan, as proposed by the Minister in the new document. Will he please let us know where the community workshops figure in that plan and whether it will be open for discussion with the community workshops involved?

Mr. Needham: Anything that we do with community workshops will be open to discussion. They provide training for a little over 2,000 people out of a total of 9,000 on the youth training programme. The key factor is to make certain that when youngsters leave, they have the skills and qualifications that will lead to employment, and we are working together to ensure that community workshops throughout Northern Ireland provide them as effectively and professionally as possible.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The Minister must be aware that morale among community workshop managers is low at the moment, and that there is increasing concern about the application of the new block funding scheme. Will he give an undertaking that, if it becomes apparent during this financial year that the new financial scheme is acting to the disadvantage of community workshops, he will review the scheme at the end of the financial year?

Mr. Needham: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the workshops and his intervention, but I have to say to him that I do not accept that the morale of managers is as he says it is. Nor do I accept that the vast majority of them are not playing the best part that they can to work the new scheme, which will lead to increasing qualifications and skills, and therefore to increased employment. Of course, we shall consider with the managers the level of support that we are giving them, but they will have to ensure that they get as many of their youngsters as possible out into the private sector to be trained and thus earning fees for themselves. That will increase the amount of experience gained by young people, which they need to get jobs.

Strangford Lough

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what opportunity there will be for the residents around Strangford Lough in its future management following the declaration of the three areas of specific scientific interest for the lough.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Resident owners and users continue to manage their land.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the concern of many people around Strangford Lough about the declaration of the site of special scientific interest, and the proposals for a marine nature reserve? Does the Minister agree that the people who use the lough, those who farm around it and the residents should be involved in its management? I know that the Minister's officials met the


Strangford Lough Nature Conservation Association this morning, but does not he agree that the best prospects for conservation would be to involve the local people? Therefore, will he agree personally to meet that association, which is now supported by more than 300 residents from around Strangford Lough?

Mr. Bottomley: There would be much more of a fuss if we had not declared the foreshore to be an area of special scientific interest. If we were not moving towards establishing a marine nature reserve, there would also rightly he a fuss. Most of the concerns are totally misplaced, as I have explained on two occasions.
I hope that people will continue to manage their own land in ways that are consistent with the importance of the lough and, if sensible discussions need to continue, I am perfectly happy to be involved in them. I ask people, as well as looking at the law, to start looking at the use of the lough. We can combine uses that are economic, recreational and environmental with the protection of the water and the foreshore.

Kincora Boys Home

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information his Department received concerning obstruction into the process of inquiry into alleged sexual abuse of boys and the Kincora boys home.

Mr. Cope: I do not believe that any relevant information was withheld from successive inquiries.

Mr. Dalyell: What evidence does the Minister have for that opinion? Does he share the disgust of many of us that for some reason the interests of the security forces apparently took precedence over the interests of vulnerable boys in care in a real sense and under the guardianship of the nation?

Mr. Cope: My opinion comes from my study of the papers on the matter. I would share the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed if I thought that the facts were as he described them. I do not believe that they were; the RUC had information, but, as Sir George Terry's report explained, that information was acted on not immediately but only some years later.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Mayor of Paris, Mr. Jacques Chirac, and this evening I shall preside at a dinner in honour of the Crown Prince of Morocco.

Mr. Campbell: Will the Prime Minister commission an inquiry by the social services inspectorate into establishing the allegations that staff shortages in Wandsworth council resulted in the death of a three-year-old child?

The Prime Minister: No. Obviously that tragic case affected us all greviously. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the death of that child occurred in August 1989. The details of the case are being thoroughly looked into. Wandsworth council had already spent a great deal on that case, including at one stage removing that family to another place of residence at the cost of some £15,000. They were moved to a residential home and then back into a council house. Wandsworth has a very good record on social workers, having about 4 per cent. more social workers in relation to its population than other inner London authorities. This is a tragic case. Of course, there has been an inquiry and the recommendations of that inquiry will be accepted.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend at all concerned that on Tuesday the European Court instructed our courts to consider interim relief from sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 although the House of Lords decided that it had no powers to do so? Until we accept that European law is supreme over our own law, is not it a dangerous development that the court is effectively taking on the power to suspend sections of laws passed by this Parliament? Will not that open up the possibility and likelihood that groups and individuals will seek relief from laws passed by this Parliament simply by going to the European Court and claiming that they have lost as a consequence of those laws?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's concern about that judgment. As he said, since the European Communities Act 1972, our courts have been obliged to protect rights under Community law, but the European Court has now said that where those rights are impaired by British law, our courts have the power to grant an injunction until the main case is heard. That applies to what my hon. Friend said, although the injunction may affect the operation of an Act of our own Parliament. The European Court has left it to our courts to decide whether or not to exercise that power. The case in question now goes back to our courts to decide whether the power to give interim relief should be used. We shall argue strongly that it should not. Meanwhile, the position on fishing rights remains unchanged. I should point out that the European Court's decision applies to all European countries, not only to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement that the proposals put forward by the Chancellor last night are
a very useful intermediate step
towards "a Single European Currency"—the view, and indeed the words, of the Governor of the Bank of England?

The Prime Minister: That is not quite what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, in a most excellent and constructive speech—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: —which has been very widely welcomed as building on the present position, going forward in an evolutionary way. We should bear it in mind


that many other countries may wish to join the Community, and not make it more difficult for them to do so. The speech does not mean that we approve of a single European currency; it says specifically that we do not. It provides for a common European currency, which each country may use if it wishes to do so. That does not therefore take away from our sovereignty. It provides a way of trying to get inflation down by reference to a hard ecu. I was not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman said that he had read the speech or, if he had read it, whether he understood it.

Mr. Kinnock: By all means, I have read the speech. I wonder whether the Chancellor explained to the right hon. Lady that if the idea that he put forward were accepted, with the European Monetary Fund and the hard ecu, it would be the final surrender of monetary sovereignty by Britain, as sterling moved into the hard ecu. Does she take that into account in the view that she expresses about what the Chancellor said?

The Prime Minister: The purpose of that speech, and that proposal, is precisely that we do not surrender control over our monetary policy. Of course, we wish to use monetary policy in a way that gets inflation down, but the proposal does not surrender control over that policy.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. These are important matters. Is she saying, in the responses that she has made thus far, that when the Governor of the Bank of England said to the House of Lords yesterday that a European Monetary Fund and a hard ecu would, and I quote him precisely,
be a very useful intermediate step between the … existing EC currencies and a single EC currency
he was wrong?

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman reads more carefully the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, which proposes building on the existing ecu—the City has already issued securities denominated in ecu—to have a hard ecu, which could become a common European currency available for countries to use if they so choose. It retains the choice and it retains sterling.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to Question 3.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is all right. I shall come back to Question 2.

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June:

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the 11 years of her leadership the economy in Scotland has been transformed into a dynamic, vibrant and modern economy? Will she confirm that she has no plans to introduce an assembly Act, which would give Scotland an assembly in Edinburgh with tax-raising powers and which would place in jeopardy that modern, vibrant economy?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Scotland is doing better than ever before because of this Government's policies, which Scotland has taken to very well indeed and is using profitably to her own advantage.
We have no plans to introduce an assembly. If one took into account all Scotland's own spending, with Scotland having to bear all its own expenditure, it would mean an additional 20p on the standard rate of income tax in Scotland.

North-east Scotland

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to visit the north-east of Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I hope to visit the north-east of Scotland later this year.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Speedlink rail freight service that serves the north-east of Scotland faces closure because of her plans to sell off parts of British Rail? Is she further aware that such a closure would lead to 100,000 tonnes of timber being moved from rail to road, which would create an additional 18,000 lorry movements every year on Scotland's already overcrowded roads? Given that such a development makes no economic sense, does the Prime Minister accept that the price to be paid by the rest of us for her personal obsession with privatisation is too high and that she should instruct British Rail to retain the existing Speedlink service?

The Prime Minister: Some of us think when we visit Scotland and travel on her roads that they are very much better than the roads down south, and not nearly so crowded. Scotland has had an enormous amount of money spent on her roads. Current investment levels in British Rail are the highest, in real terms, for a quarter of a century, with £3·7 billion to be invested over the next three years.

Engagements

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bellingham: Does the Prime Minister share the widely felt concern about human rights in Romania? Does she agree that neither Britain nor the EEC should extend further assistance to Romania in the present circumstances, except of a purely humanitarian kind?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's concern. After all that the Romanian people have been through, we were absolutely horrified to see on television a repetition of previous scenes and the violence being used by the miners. We were also very much concerned about the fate of some of the demonstrators who were arrested. We have invoked the Helsinki agreement to seek information from the Romanian Government about their fate. In the meantime, the European Community is quite right to refuse to sign a trade and co-operation agreement with Romania. Romania will not be invited to the ministerial meeting of the Group of 24 on 4 July to discuss aid to eastern Europe. We think that that is a proper response to the scenes that we saw and witnessed on television.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that, whatever the flaws—I suspect that they will be fatal—in the Chancellor's new proposals for competing currencies, it is nevertheless very welcome that her Cabinet colleagues,


or at least some of them, have managed to lever her forward an inch or two on Europe? The Prime Minister has said that this is an evolutionary approach, An evolutionary approach must have an objective, Will the Prime Minister repeat to the House what she has said before: that she does not believe that Britain should, or will in her lifetime, join a single European currency or a central European bank?

The Prime Minister: I think that the proposals outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are the right way ahead: to build on the existing ecu. We have issued securities denominated in ecu. It meets the wish of many people to have a common currency. That is quite different from a single currency. The common currency would be the new ecu. It means that those who wish to use the new ecu in place of their own currency may do so. I do not believe that we shall. It also provides protection against inflation, Furthermore, it would not be an impediment to many east European countries that may wish to join us later, If, however, we tied ourselves up too closely and relinquished our monetary powers to a central authority, they would not wish to join; nor should we wish to relinquish the powers of this House.

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that regional airports play a crucial role in stimulating growth

in the areas that they serve? Will she therefore join me in expressing astonishment at the crass, blinkered and short-sighted attitude shown by the Labour-controlled Ipswich borough council, which is intent on closing down Ipswich airport even though no suitable alternative site has yet been found?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the Government wish to see the maximum use of airports in the regions, to meet as much local demand as they can attract, Since 1981 we have given borrowing approval for more than £287 million—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: We have given borrowing approval totalling over £287 million for the development of local authority airports and I hope that a new site can be found quickly for the airport to which my hon. Friend referred, I understand that discussions have already taken place between Suffolk county council and the Ministry of Defence—[Interruption.] Clearly Opposition Members are not in the least bit interested in the new airport for Ipswich—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, This is taking up a lot of time and the Prime Minister is trying to answer the question.

The Prime Minister: The Opposition are not interested, Mr. Speaker. Discussions have already taken place between Suffolk county council and the Ministry of Defence about the possible use of RAF Wattisham. We are interested in regional airports, but the Opposition are not.

Business of the House

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Having heard the Prime Minister read so many answers to planted questions, may we now have the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th allotted day), There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Price of Electricity Privatisation".
Motion relating to the Police (Amendment) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 26 JUNE—Opposition Day (16th allotted day), Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Railway Policy and the Economic and Social Interests of the Nation", Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "British Development Aid and the Environment", Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
Remaining stages of Pakistan Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 27 JUNE—Supplemental timetable motion on and consideration of Lords amendments to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
THURSDAY 28 JUNE—There will be a debate on the scrutiny of European legislation on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The Fourth report, Session 1988–89, of the Select Committee on Procedure on the Scrutiny of European Legislation (HC 622 vol. I and II) together with the Government response (CM 1081) will be relevant to the debate.
FRIDAY 29 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 2 JULY—Estimates Day (1st allotted day, 2nd part), There will be a debate on class II votes 2, 4 and 5 so far as they relate to assistance to eastern Europe.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed Private Business for consideration at seven o'clock.

Mr. Grocott: When will we get the Government's statement on their poll tax proposals? This week even the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils said that it needs £4 billion just to stand still and avoid further massive increases in poll tax demands next year, Is not it high time that the Prime Minister swallowed her pride, came to the House, admitted that the whole thing was a shambles and told us what she was going to do about it?
On Wednesday's business—the National Health Service and Community Care Bill—what will be the Government's proposals on the ring-fencing of community care grants which is recognised as essential by everyone who knows anything about the subject except, apparently, the Government? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us on Wednesday what his strategy will be? Will we have adequate time to debate it?
On the international issue of global warming—an issue in which the Prime Minister showed tremendous interest for two weeks between her speech on 24 may and 8 June—

Mr. Donald Thompson: Get on with it.

Mr. Grocott: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like it.
On 8 June, the Government blocked European proposals to cut emissions of carbon dioxide. When will the Government stop saying one thing and doing another?
This afternoon the Prime Minister gave one of her numerous, read, prepared answers on the European Court of Justice ruling. When will the Government make a statement to the House so that we can have a proper question-and-answer session to discuss this extremely important issue?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The community charge is likely to be the subject of a debate on charge capping, the date of which will be fixed through the usual channels in the normal way.
The hon. Gentleman's point on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill can no doubt be raised in the debate still to take place on that. The time provided for discussion next week should be sufficient for the matter to be concluded.
There are no plans for any consideration of the broad question of global warming which the hon. Gentleman raised.
The hon. Gentleman has already heard a statement on the ruling of the European Court of Justice from the Prime Minister this afternoon which follows from the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972. It may be possible to raise some aspects of that in the debate next Thursday.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, The House knows that I am reluctant to curtail business questions. However, we have another statement after this and a very important debate today which is timed for Divisions at 7 pm and 11 pm. I will allow questions on business to continue until 4.10
pm, which will be a full half hour. Will hon. Members please ask single questions related to the business next week?

Mr. Tim Yeo: In view of the widespread concern felt by taxpayers throughout the country, will my right hon. and learned Friend find time at an early date for a debate on taxation so that the Government can reassure not just 14, but 15 out of 15 taxpayers that they will not face a substantial increase in tax rates? That may also provide an opportunity for the Opposition to agree their policies on the issue.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's objective. He will have an opportunity of joining the Government's supporters in making that point very clear when, before too long, the Finance Bill returns to the House on Report.

Mr. James Molyneaux: On the proposals for a Select Committee on Northern Irish affairs, and in the light of his reply to me last Thursday, has the Leader of the House had time to consult the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss that question at some point during the debate on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1987 which I hope to bring before the House before too long.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Following the recent decision of the European Court of Justice, may we have a statement from the Government on whether there is any authority by which a British court may effect the suspension of the workings of legislation passed by Parliament subsequent to the European Communities Act 1972, save by the authority of Parliament? Can our courts issue such directions and by what authority can they do so when legislation has been passed subsequent to the 1972 Act? Do the Government consider that Act to be entrenched?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate to answer a series of important questions on that matter when dealing with business questions, However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the judgment of the European Court of Justice, which applies equally to all member states, is binding on us as part of our law by reason of the European Communities Act 1972. Again, as my right hon. Friend said, the way in which the consequences of the judgment should be applied will now be worked out by the English courts—

Mr. Dick Douglas: Only the English courts?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: By the courts of the United Kingdom. They will decide whether—and if so, how far—the power should be used in this case.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Leader of the House confirm that Monday's debate on the Police (Amendment) Regulations also relates to the Northern Ireland and Scottish regulations, the original prayer against the latter having been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D, Steel)?
Looking beyond the European Court's decision to its subject matter—quota hopping by Spanish vessels—will a statement be made by a Minister with responsibility for fisheries on the further steps that will be taken to try to eradicate that abuse of the common fisheries policy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that all the Police (Amendment) Regulations will be subject to discussion in the debate that I have announced, for which we intend to provide three hours.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the European Court judgment, I understand that a question that will be answered in the House tomorrow may have some bearing. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, for the present, until the implications of the judgment are considered further in the United Kingdom courts, the position on fishing rights remains unchanged.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is it proposed that the right to strike down Acts of Parliament will be used only by the House of Lords in its judicial capacity, or will we find that every court in the land can be appealed to on the basis that there is overriding EEC legislation? If that is the position, there will be uncertainty and confusion in every court in the land.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I understand it, the position in that respect has not changed since the 1972 Act and the

treaty of accession, which provided for questions on Community law to be referred to the European Court of Justice in the fashion that has been exercised in this case.

Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise the deep anxiety about the grave issues that are implicit in yesterday's judgment of the European Court in Luxembourg. Therefore, will he not hide behind a supplementary reply from the Prime Minister and will he arrange with the Attorney-General for a full statement early next week so that we can examine this matter, as we have a right to do?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly bring the right hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. As I said, following from what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier, the European Court has given a judgment, whose application to this case will have to be worked out in a case before the courts of the United Kingdom. While that process is taking place, I am not sure how much it would be fruitful to have a statement of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman requests. However, I shall bring his request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Edward Leigh: May I respectfully press my right hon. and learned Friend on that point? All right, the process is carrying on and one may accept that the court was merely applying a right that it has held since 1972, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that this is a matter of the highest constitutional importance, way above the normal ebb and flow of politics, which goes right to the root of the supremacy of Parliament as the supreme court in this land. Therefore, may I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to arrange a major debate on this issue at the earliest opportunity?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have heard the points that have been made by hon. Members of all parties. At this stage, I can say no more than I have said already. I shall bring the request for a statement to the attention of my right hon. and learned. Friend the Attorney-General and I note that we shall have a debate on some aspects of this matter next Thursday.

Mr. Mike Carr: May I draw the deputy Prime Minister's attention to early-day motion 1131, which concerns News International's decision to declare 412 workers redundant at the Eric Bemrose works in Liverpool, and to transfer that work to West Germany?
[That this House notes with alarm the proposal by News International to make over 400 workers at the Eric Bemrose Works redundant; calls upon the group to reconsider this decision, bearing in mind the impact on the Merseyside economy; further notes the fact that the group are currently recruiting some 350 staff for their new Knowsley works and calls on them to give priority to Bemrose workers when filling these vacancies; and seeks assurances over the remaining 160 or so jobs at the Bemrose Works.]
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot set aside some time for a debate on that matter, will he make a statement next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises that point. It is a matter of regret,


particularly for those involved in the constituency that he now represents, The decision was taken by News International and the Government cannot intervene in commercial decisions of that nature, However, it is to be hoped that consideration will be given to the work force at Bemrose during the recruitment of staff for the News International plant at Knowsley.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend has said that we can discuss this supreme constitutional issue on Thursday, but I understand that that debate is about how we scrutinise European legislation. The issue that we are discussing and which we should like to debate next week is the fact that we can pass an Act of Parliament about fundamental issues and next week any tuppenny ha'penny court in the land—I do not mean that pejoratively—can kick it into touch, send it across to the European Court and, however long it takes the European Court, the decision of this House and this Parliament is thrown into abeyance. It is a vital constitutional issue and we should debate it forthwith.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that my hon. Friend is particularly worried about the matter. It is a matter of developing interest in our relations with the European Community. It has always been implicit in and a consequence of the provisions of the treaty of accession and the 1972 Act.

Mr. Tom Cox: The Leader of the House will have heard the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) put to the Prime Minister. Is he aware of the deep anguish in Wandsworth over the report on the tragic death of the abused child Stephanie Fox? Is he aware that in Wandsworth we are threatened with even further cuts in essential services for preventing child abuse? Against that background can he give an assurance that the House will have the opportunity as soon as possible to debate that report or that the Secretary of State for Social Services will come to the House and make a full statement on the events that surrounded the brutal death of Stephanie Fox and exactly what provision Wandsworth council intends to make for young children at risk?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I join my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in expressing sympathy with those involved in that case, I do not necessarily follow the hon. Gentleman in linking that tragedy to the other matters to which he referred. I shall bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the deputy Prime Minister provide time next week for an urgent debate on the problems of the town of Holywood in my constituency and in particular the need to provide recreational facilities for the residents and young people, the traffic congestion in the town and the urgent need for a new car park?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot undertake to offer a debate on that topic, but I can undertake to bring it specifically to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Leader of the House accept the thanks of the Scrutiny Committee on European legislation for putting next Thursday's debate on the Adjournment? Is he aware that another report will be relevant to the debate because the Committee is contemplating publishing a special report on its responsibilities? In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks and proposals last night about monetary matters, will the Govrnment place those proposals before the Council of Ministers of the European Community?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the second part of the question, copies of the speech are being placed in the Library of the House. The proposals form part of the United Kingdom's constructive approach to the matters that will be discussed at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the form of next Thursday's debate. It will allow matters which emerge from any additional report to be raised during the proceedings.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Lest my right hon. and learned Friend is in any doubt about the strength of feeling expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I hope that he will listen carefully to the representations that have been made about the European Court of Justice decision, It is absolutely fundamental to the existence of the House of Commons and Parliament that the matter should be resolved. We should at least have the opportunity to clear up possible misunderstandings and the doubt that exists in the present circumstances so that we all know where we stand.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course I understand that this is a matter about which a number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members feel strongly. Clearly there is room for a wide range of views and differences of emphasis. I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend and bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jack Ashley: May I take it that the Leader of the House was disturbed as I was by the report in The Independent today that one child in three is attacked by dogs and that the majority are bitten? This morning in a hospital I heard about some of the horrific injuries to children caused by dogs. Does he agree that it is time that we made the owners liable for compensation—let us say £100 a bite—as that would make owners control their dogs?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's expression of concern about the consequences of injury to children, among others, by dogs that are violent or out of control, The Government take the matter seriously and I shall bring the right hon. Gentleman's specific proposals to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: In view of the shocking explosion at the Royal Air Force base in my constituency this morning in which, mercifully, there were no casualties, will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement from the Ministry of Defence about the circumstances of it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course we share the concern at the explosion that took place in my hon. Friend's


constituency and his relief that there were no casualties. I shall bring his request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Leader of the House wants to debate the constitutional crisis between the Common Market and the British Parliament it would be relatively easy to find time on Monday by having a word with the Chairman of Ways and Means and getting rid of the three-hour slot on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. We could then have a pretty good discussion and remind the electorate that it was a Tory Government who took Britain into the Common Market, with a few Euro-fanatics behind me, Shirley Poppins, Dr. Death and all the rest of them. More latterly it was a Tory Government who backed the Single European Act and forced it through on a guillotine with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and all the rest of the Tory Cabinet present.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was under the impression that a subsequent Labour Government claimed to renegotiate the terms of our membership of the Community and commended those terms to the people of this country. They endorsed them with a substantial majority of 2:1 in a subsequent referendum, As for the hon. Gentleman's specific suggestion, I see no reason to invite the Chairman of Ways and Means to derange the proposals that he has already made.

Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. and learned Friend will no doubt recollect that in 1980 the cost of first-class postage was 12p. He will also have noted that, this week, there was a proposal to raise that charge to 22p from September. In view of the appalling service that we receive from the Royal Mail, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate before that increase is allowed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although I do not accept every aspect of the important points made by my hon. Friend, he may be happy to know that there will be a debate on that subject, although I have not arranged it, on the Adjournment on Monday.

Dr. John Reid: It not it about time that we had a debate in Government time on the decision of British Steel to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig because of the mystery that now surrounds the Government's position? Is the Leader of the House aware that we can get no information from the Department of Trade and Industry since it says that its correspondence with Sir Robert Scholey is confidential, that the meetings between the Scottish Office and the DTI are confidential and that the letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland from Bob Scholey is now confidential? The only way in which to clear up this farce, which is becoming a cross between the magic circle and the secret seven, is to have a debate in Government time. Will the Leader of the House promise that that will be forthcoming?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a debate of the kind that the hon. Gentleman requests in the way he requests. I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland has received a substantial reply from the chairman of British Steel which, subject to the needs of confidentiality, goes into the reasons for the decision to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My right hon. and

learned Friend would like to publish the letter in due course, but that would require the agreement of British Steel.

Mr. Michael Brown: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will enable the Chairman of Ways and Means to go about his business in the way he intimated in his statement. But will the Leader of the House, throughout next week's business and particularly on Monday, do what he can to ensure that the House can go about its business properly? Will he ensure that there is no repeat of what occurred at 3 o'clock this morning, when a Bill which had not been opposed on Second Reading or at Third Reading and which was designed to ensure the safety of the travelling public had to undergo farcical treatment because of the activities of a few Opposition Members?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot, of course, ensure the result for which my hon. Friend asks, although it is greatly to be desired. The majority of hon. Members will deprecate what happened yesterday, The measure before the House last night is important and went through Second Reading without a Division, For a small number of hon. Members to seek to debate, and divide on, every amendment made in another place is not an acceptable way of proceeding and I hope that there can be discussions through the usual channels to allow the measure to proceed.

Mr. John Garrett: May we have a debate on the inadequacy of the regulation of the City, given the scandals of Dunsdale Securities, supposedly regulated by the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation, and British and Commonwealth, supposedly regulated by the Securities and Investments Board? Is not it time that the supine incompetence of the Department of Trade and Industry was examined more closely?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's observations, but if he and his hon. Friends feel as strongly as that, it is surprising that they have not chosen the topic for discussion on an Opposition day.

Mr. Michael Latham: On the National Health Service and Community Care Bill debate next week, will the Secretary of State for Health take the opportunity to make a statement saying what he intends to do to help health authorities such as Leicestershire which are facing financial difficulty because of their inability to sell surplus land? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the matter must be addressed urgently because many health authorities are in similar difficulties?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is diligent in drawing the attention of the House to examples of that matter, I am not sure how far it will be relevant or admissible in the debate next week on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, but I will bring his point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Leader of the House will probably agree with my request that he urgently consult the Chairman of Ways and Means with a view to changing Monday's business, for the good reason that we have not yet reached the point in the House when we are expected to debate documents that are not


available. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that yesterday I went to the Vote Office, and that this afternoon I and a number of my hon. Friends went to the Vote Office, to collect copies of the Lords amendments that we are supposed to be debating on Monday, but they were not there? Is he aware that as those documents, which are essential for that debate and which we may seek to amend further, are not available, the debate cannot possibly take place—and we cannot be expected to co-operate—in a sensible manner.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fancy that the hon. Gentleman may be speaking about the wrong day because I see nothing in Monday's business to justify those comments. But I will ensure that his more general point is looked into.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the impact of the recent European Court of Justice decision is more than merely a question of emphasis but is a major question of constitutional importance? In the Bill of Rights the suspending and dispensing power of Acts of Parliament by sovereigns was expressly denied, Is he aware that the European Court of Justice now appears to be changing its practice and is saying that the courts of this country can overturn Acts of Parliament? Hitherto when the European Court had said that our law was not in conformity with European law, it required the Government to introduce legislation to repeal the existing statute. We seem to have gone a large step beyond that now, and this major issue of constitutional importance should be debated at the earliest opportunity.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the way in which my hon. Friend puts the point; I shall continue to reflect on it in the way that I have mentioned.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although many right hon. and hon. Members have understandably raised the issue of parliamentary sovereignty, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman understand that the principle underpinning Scottish constitutional law is that of the sovereignty of the people? Given that the Government have dismissed the views of the people of Scotland on the disposal of nuclear waste at Dounreay, will he arrange for an early statement about the activities of Nirex and British Nuclear Fuels plc not only at Dounreay but elsewhere in Scotland so that we can be fully aware of all the sites being considered by those agencies?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give an undertaking on those lines but I shall bring the point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As there would be no need for any prisoner to be in police cells but for the industrial action in localised areas by the Prison Officers Association; and as we have the largest prison building programme of the century; and as the prison population is falling and the number of prison officers rising; and as prison officers are among the better paid public service employees; and as there is no need for the proposed industrial action, will my right hon. and learned Friend find an early time for a debate on the subject of prisons so that these matters can be more effectively put?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the great majority of hon. Members will share the concern expressed by my hon. and learned Friend about the impact of the industrial action being taken by the prison officers, The fact is that the Director-General of the Prison Service has on two occasions—most recently today—written to the chairman of the Prison Officers Association repeating his earlier offer that the prison service is ready to enter into immediate discussions about matters of mutual concern, I think that the great majority of hon. Members will urge the POA to accept that offer of meetings.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or debate at the beginning of next week on our crumbling schools? Is he aware that the Minister responsible for schools, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), is visiting four schools in Coventry tomorrow with the unenviable task of having to explain why the city council has received only 15 per cent. of the £12 million that it needs this year for urgent repairs? Is he further aware that one school in my constituency has to make the toilet area double up as a computer studies area?

Hon. Members: Pay up.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nellist: Is not the Leader of the House ashamed that our children do not have better facilities in which to learn?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On more than one occasion the hon. Gentleman has asked questions along those lines, completely overlooking the fact that in real terms expenditure per head in education is higher now than at any time.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the recent lobby by a number of unfortunate people who have suffered serious side-effects from long exposure to high doses of steriods, Will he find time for a debate so that attention can be focused on the plight of those unfortunate people and on warning the public of the dangers of protracted use of high doses of these powerful drugs?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I cannot offer the prospect of a debate on this topic, but I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House accept that behind his slip of the tongue—when he referred to English law—is an attitude of mind that is particularly irritating to Scots, some of whom have been paying the poll tax for 15 months? Will we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Government's proposed amendments to the tax before local authorities in Scotland increase it even more?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am wholly aware of the importance of recognising that the highest courts in the land apply to the United Kingdom because they apply also to Wales and Scotland, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's specific point to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: In view of the garbled and muddled attempt by the Leader of the


Opposition on television on Monday to explain his income tax and expenditure policies, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate on adult education so that we can discuss the obvious need for supplemental remedial classes in arithmetic and English?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend chooses an important example of that need. However, I am not sure whether even the most elegant classes would fulfil the object that he has in mind.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Bearing in mind the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's two fascinating statements during the past fortnight about taking Britain towards European monetary union were made to private gatherings of business men, and knowing the Prime Minister's admiration for the principles of parliamentary democracy and accountability, will the Leader of the House persuade the Chancellor to come to the House next week to make an early statement and then to pop upstairs and give some evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor takes advantage of many opportunities for developing the thinking about this matter in the House and before Select Committees and other audiences. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the obvious confusion that abounds among the leaders of the Opposition about their political policy could be substantially clarified for the benefit of the nation generally if every week at a quarter past three the Leader of the Opposition presented himself at the Dispatch Box and answered questions in the same way as does the Prime Minister? We would then be better able to understand exactly what the Opposition stand for.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The great majority of hon. Members would prefer to keep the right hon. Gentleman in his present role at the Dispatch Box on the Opposition side of the House.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Lord President of the Council take the opportunity to arrange an early debate on the Government's private Bill procedure? Is he aware that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill is a public Bill going through the private Bill route? Is he further aware that the Finance Bill has had to be modified through the insertion of two new clauses to take into account the financial provisions of a private Bill? Therefore, we have the odd situation of a private Bill which is a public Bill and a hybrid Bill at one and the same time, May we have an early debate on this perversion of the procedures of the House which is an abuse of the House and all that we stand for?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept the insight offered by the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to say that we have completed our consideration of private Bill procedure and that I have today announced proposals which are being

made available, [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I announced them in reply to a question today from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P, McNair-Wilson), and, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment, I have published a consultation paper on the topic. That consultation paper is available to hon. Members.

Mr. David Nicholson: May we have an early debate on the future of county and regional government in England in view of the proposals by the Labour party to abolish county councils, which, for all their faults, are familiar and traditional units of government, and to replace them with a costly bureaucratic tier of regional assemblies? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the south-west, regional assemblies would be a shambles because Bristol, Exeter and Plymouth would all be unsatisfactory as regional capitals? Even Taunton, which has been proposed by a Labour candidate as a regional capital, would cause a development nightmare for my constituents and I am sure that it would be objectionable to Cornish Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for St, Ives (Mr. Harris).

Sir Geoffrey Howe: After such a comprehensive suggestion I almost doubt the need for a debate.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House ask the appropriate Secretary of State, presumably the Foreign Secretary, to make a statement to the House about imports from countries that make extensive use of child labour? To some extent it is hypocrisy to talk about human rights when we are importing materials from such countries at the expense of the exploitation of children.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman has examples in mind I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange an early debate on the future of the War Crimes Bill so that the House can reiterate its support for that Bill?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Having considered all the implications of the debates and votes that have already taken place in both Houses on the subject, including the vote in the other place on 4 June, the Government have decided that the War Crimes Bill should be reintroduced next Session, The Government will be seeking, whether by way of suggested amendments or otherwise, to secure the support of both Houses for the Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have not been able to call all the hon. Members who have been rising, but I shall ensure that those who have not been called today will be called early next Thursday.

Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after the Home Secretary's statement.

Calcutt Report

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the report of the committee on privacy and related matters, which is published today.
I should like, first of all, to pay tribute to the committee and its distinguished chairman, Mr. David Calcutt QC, who have produced a meticulous and carefully argued report on a complex and sensitive subject, and within the very tight timetable set by the Government.
Hon. Members will recall that the committee was set up in April last year in response to widespread concern about invasions of privacy by the press, much of which was expressed in the debates on two private Members' Bills which were then before the House.
The Government warmly welcome the general approach which the committee has taken in its report on the delicate issue of balancing privacy for the individual against the maintenance of freedom of expression) The committee asserts that, in general, freedom of expression should take precedence over protection of privacy and that where such protection is necessary it is best provided through specific, targeted remedies. It rejects the introduction of a statutory right of reply and concludes that the case for a statutory tort of infringement of privacy has not so far been made out.
The committee was rightly concerned about physical intrusion by the press, particularly in the light of the very serious incident earlier this year when reporters invaded the hospital bedroom of the actor Gorden Kaye. The report recommends three new criminal offences: of trespass on private property to obtain personal information for publication; of planting a surveillance device on private property to secure information for publication; and of taking a photograph, or recording the voice, of someone on private property for publication and with the intention that he should be identifiable. All three offences would be subject to defences of public right to know, for example when done to expose crime or other wrongdoing, and of lawful authority.
The Government are attracted by those recommendations, which offer the possibility of an immediate remedy against the worst excesses of the press. We accept them in principle. Careful thought will need to be given to the detailed formulation of the offences and the precise scope of any defence. I shall report to the House about those matters later in the year. We shall also consider whether these proposals might be appropriate for introduction in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The report also recommends extending in England and Wales the present restrictions on reporting criminal proceedings by giving the court power in certain curcumstances to prohibit the publication of the name and address of any person against whom an offence is alleged to have been committed and extending the present anonymity of rape victims to victims of other sexual offences. I welcome those proposals, which fit well with measures we are already taking to improve the treatment of victims. We shall give further consideration to them, with special reference to the balance to be struck between the rights of victims and the presumption that criminal proceedings should take place in public.
The central recommendations of the report concern the

regulation of the press. The committee reviewed recent progress by the industry and the Press Council in improving the current system of self-regulation, but concluded that the process has not gone far enough. It recommends that the press should be given 12 months to establish a new non-statutory press complaints commission, modelled on the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which would be responsible specifically for the adjudication of complaints.
It would operate under a more comprehensive code of practice than has been used up to now for guidance to both press and public as to what is unacceptable press behaviour, and its 12 members would be independently selected by a special appointments commission. The committee recommends that if the rulings of the press complaints commission are flouted by an individual publication, it should be placed on a statutory basis. If the press do not proceed to set up the commission, or if it is set up but there is a more general breakdown in enforcement of its decisions, the committee recommends the establishment of a publicly funded statutory tribunal with more far-reaching powers.
The Government recognise that the industry has made some attempt in the past year to respond to the public concern about press abuses, and I pay tribute to the determined efforts of the chairman of the Press Council to modernise and make more effective the existing system of self-regulation, In the view of the Calcutt committee, however, the reforms have not gone far enough, the two distinct functions of defending the freedom of the press and adjudicating on complaints of press malpractice sit uneasily together, and only an independent body can effectively carry out that second task.
The Government are aware, of course, that the press are not alone responsible among the media for unwarranted breaches of privacy, and that similar concerns have been expressed in the past about broadcasting. They believe that the establishment of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission has been an effective response to that concern and has provided useful redress to individuals unfairly treated in broadcast programmes. They therefore accept the central recommendation of the committee that the press should be given 12 months to establish a press complaints commission on the lines proposed.
This is positively the last chance for the industry to establish an effective non-statutory system of regulation, and I strongly hope that it will seize the opportunity that the committee has given it. If a non-statutory commission is established, the Government will review its performance after 18 months of operation to determine whether a statutory underpinning is required. If no steps are taken to set up such a commission, the Government, albeit with some regret, will proceed to establish a statutory framework, taking account of the committee's recommendations.
It is now up to the press to take up the challenge that the committee has presented to it. I am confident that the response will be a positive one.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I begin by offering our congratulations to Mr. Calcutt and to his committee on the production of what I regard as an historic report. We give an unqualified welcome to its positive proposals and shall happily co-operate in their implementation.
The report is based on the principle that private individuals have a right to maintain their privacy. Sometimes, public figures may have to accept the consequences of their status—although I share the view expressed in the report that the kind of treatment endured by Mr. Gorden Kaye was intolerable and in future must be prohibited, But private citizens are entitled to absolute protection against intruders, and the report at least shows the way in which that protection can be provided.
May I specifically offer our support to paragraph 14.38, where it is proposed that the press should be given "one final chance" to prove that voluntary regulation can be made to work, However, may I also make it clear that acceptance of that judgment requires parallel support for paragraph 16.1—the insistence that if the press fail
to demonstrate that non-statutory self-regulation can be made to work effectively…a statutory system…should be introduced.
We endorse that, and I hope that the Home Secretary will make it clear that he also endorses the Calcutt test of how the success of self-regulation can be measured.
A single maverick paper ignoring the proposed new code of conduct would, in Calcutt's estimation, justify the introduction of statutory regulations, Will the Home Secretary confirm that he shares and endorses that view?
A code of statutory regulation with funds levied from the industry, but determined by the Government, and a statutory system of regulation would be introduced, including powers to impose penalties, which in our view must be large enough to act as a deterrent, We cannot have the situation in which newspapers gladly pay a small fine because the story that the fine has created improves the circulation enough to make the fine worth paying.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, although the Calcutt committee does not favour a statutory right of reply, it proposes that the new press commission might require the publication of a correction and an apology in a prescribed form? Some of us believe that the distinction between that remedy and the right of reply is purely semantic, We are prepared to see that variation on the theme examined and initially put into operation.
May I offer the Home Secretary our support for the specific changes in the law which Calcutt recommends: taking a photograph or recording the voice of an individual who is on private property, which could become a criminal offence, except in carefully defined circumstances; and legal restriction on the identification of minors and victims of sexual assault, as is now provided for rape victims.
The Home Secretary said in his statement that in the recent past the British press had begun to take action against unacceptable intrusion, That is certainly the cae with some newspapers, but others have endorsed a voluntary code of conduct and then flouted it within days of their editors signing the document, Other newspapers have refused to accept the recommendations—indeed have derided the recommendations—of the voluntary Press Council, which they regarded as the proper protection against intrusion.
The Home Secretary expressed the belief that newspapers will respond to this one last chance, I have my doubts, That is why the second major implication and recommendation of Calcutt—the introduction of statutory regulations by an official body—is absolutely essential if the year of grace is ignored and if the press do not mend their ways.
All right hon. and hon. Members should be determined to defend the freedom of the press: freedom against Government, freedom against powerful corporations and freedom against corruption, I certainly do not want to see the curtailment of legitimate investigative journalism, but I also believe in another freedom: the right of individuals to live in privacy and peace, The Calcutt report strikes a proper balance between the two objectives, and I hope that both sides of the House can work together to bring those two objectives about.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his general welcome to a valuable report, It is right to say that the committee starts off by saying that freedom of publication is an important principle and that there is an inherent contradiction between the freedom to publish and the right to privacy, One has to make choice at the outset whether one puts the right to privacy or the freedom to publish first in the list, The committee comes down on the latter side: it says that one starts with the principle of freedom to publish, but one then looks at the protections which have to be granted to ensure that privacy is properly protected when it should be protected and to set out protections for individuals against some of the grossest abuses which have occurred.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the clear statement by the Calcutt committee that this is one last chance for the press, That is not really an idle threat, because Calcutt goes on to set out quite plainly what further steps should be taken in certain eventualities, I shall make those successive steps clear to the House.
First of all, the press is told that they must set up a press complaints commission as a non-statutory body, That non-statutory body will have the power to recommend an apology and the nature and form of a reply or correction, including where it has to be published in the paper, There no longer has to be any waiver of legal rights as a requirement before the matter is looked into by the press complaints commission.
If maverick publications decline to respect the authority of the press complaints commission, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right that that triggers off the next step. Calcutt recommends that, in those circumstances, the press complaints commission should be put on a statutory basis, and we have accepted that recommendation. Once the commission is put on a statutory basis, it will have the power to require a response to inquiries about complaints, to publish adjudications and to recommend payment of compensation.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: What sanctions?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman had better wait a moment; then he will hear the whole story.
If the press do not set up the commission or if there is a serious breakdown of the whole system of regulation, a press complaints tribunal should be set up, with a judge and two assessors. That body would have the power to award compensation and to restrain publications in breach of the code of practice by injunction. Nobody would suggest that such a tribunal would not have very potent powers indeed. However, the Government will look at the performance of the press and the operation of the press complaints commission over a period and then return to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, I must remind the House again of what I said earlier. We have a very important debate today with a guillotine falling at 7 o'clock. I shall allow questions to continue until 10 to 5. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that no doubt we shall be discussing the matter over the next 12 months. Therefore, I ask for brief and single questions please.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that time and again the press have been given a chance to put their house in order and time and again sections of the press have wilfully flouted that requirement? Therefore, is not the giving of this last chance unduly generous to the press and unduly unprotective to the liberty of the individual? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if the defence of the public right to know is too widely drawn, it will provide no further protection for the individual? Will my right hon. and learned Friend kindly give urgent consideration to making the press complaints commission statutory from the start, as is the Broadcasting Complaints Commission?

Mr. Waddington: When my hon. and learned Friend has had time to read the report, I do not think that he will reach the conclusion that the public right to know will be so built up as to negative the protections to which I have referred. The defences to the criminal offences that have been suggested are limited indeed, There would be a defence if the act were done for the purpose of preventing, detecting or exposing the commission of any crime or other seriously anti-social behaviour, for the protection of public health or safety or under any lawful authority. If my hon. and learned Friend looks at appendix Q to the report, he will see how much tougher the proposed code is than the code that is currently supposed to be operated by the Press Council.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I recognise the need to ensure that the presumption of an individual's right to privacy is strengthened and that it is displaced only by a genuine and direct public interest, but will the Home Secretary carefully reconsider the proposals to set up three specific new crimes in the light of previous representations from the police and other law reform bodies that the creation of a law of criminal trespass would be difficult to achieve in practice? Who will appoint the appointments commission? Who will be eligible to sit on it, and if the procedure is to become statutory, how would those rules change? The first object of the Press Council, as stated in its charter, is to ensure the protection of press freedom, If it is not possible for that to be done while protecting the individual by adjudicating complaints, who will be entrusted with the first object of the Press Council—the protection of press freedom?

Mr. Waddington: I do not see why the two functions need to be in the same hands. It is perfectly logical that the press should set up a body which propagandises in the interests of press freedom, and, as I made abundantly plain, nobody doubts the importance of the freedom to publish. The committee suggests that, in the eyes of the public, it somehow blunts the edge of a body that is supposed to be set up in the interests of those who suffer from invasion of privacy for it to have an entirely contradictory function. The argument that is normally

advanced against a law of criminal trespass is that the police might become involved in domestic disputes and disputes between neighbours.
I am not arguing for or against such a law, which in any event would go far wider than necessary to protect people from press intrusion. That does not enter into the argument at all. The fact that there might be an argument for an offence of criminal trespass does not advance discussion on whether there should be specific offences to deal with intrusion by the press in order to obtain information for purposes of publication. It is suggested that an appointments commission should decide the membership of the press complaints commission. It has been suggested—it has been put forward not powerfully but as a possibility—that the Lord Chancellor may appoint members of the appointments commission.

Mr. John Gorst: I welcome all the recommendations in the report, but I have misgivings about the central proposition on which it is based. Does my right hon. and learned Friend take the view that freedom of expression should take precedence over protection of privacy, which is what the committee says? If so, does he not share my misgivings? The party to which we both belong has for a long time taken the view that the individual is more important than the collective concept. Does he find it difficult to reconcile the committee's recommendation with that article of faith?

Mr. Waddington: Quite frankly, I am not terribly interested in what is, at the end of the day, a somewhat academic argument. Either we start off by saying that there is a general freedom to publish and decide to what extent it should be qualified, or we start with the general principle of privacy and decide to what extent it should be qualified. Academic arguments of that kind do not take us very far. I am a pragmatist: I look at abuses and reach a conclusion as to whether the Calcutt proposals are likely to meet the abuses. I believe that the Calcutt proposals are likely to meet the abuses.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Home Secretary aware that the tabloids will laugh at today's announcement and will not take a blind bit of notice of it, simply because there will be no sanctions? What is the use of having a code of conduct, rather like the highway code, if we cannot take away the driving licence? The press barons of today have more power than medieval barons had in the middle ages. That is why we introduced laws to protect people against them. The report offers no right of reply, no tribunal and no independent ombudsman. There is nothing, apart from the derisory £500 compensation, which is worth paying to get the story. The press barons of today will totally ignore the report.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong when he says that the report offers no tribunal. At the end of the road is the threat of a tribunal, headed by a judge with two assessors. It would have the power to impose sanctions; there would be the power to award compensation and the power, by means of an injunction, to restrain publication that was in breach of the code of practice. I do not know how anybody can argue that that is not a potent remedy.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that a few years ago I dropped a small pebble in the pool on this subject and therefore have


a significant interest in it? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the non-academic way in which he put it, the real point is that there have been serious invasions of privacy? In the circulation war, there is a considerable incentive for people to try to make money out of invasions of privacy. Given the recommendations in the committee's report, ought not we to ensure that the people who are to run the new independent press complaints commission have the power to award compensation to victims? That would be the acid test. Should not they be prepared to put their money where their mouth is?

Mr. Waddington: It is suggested that, if we reached the stage of setting up a statutory press complaints commission, there would be the power to recommend the payment of compensation. That meets my hon. Friend's point. I congratulate him on the Bill that he introduced a few years ago. Calcutt has not come to the conclusion that it is entirely impracticable to create a tort of infringement of privacy. He just says that he believes that the other remedies put forward could achieve the same result and that if they did not do so, it would be right to reconsider whether there should be a new tort.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I welcome a great deal of what is contained in the report. It fully justifies the concern that was shown on all sides of the House, which led to the great support that was given to two private Members' Bills, The report does not provide for a statutory right of reply but states that the press must set up a commission that in effect provides for a statutory right of reply and for due prominence to be given to published apologies in a way that is not possible now. It accepts all the criticisms that have been made of the Press Council.
Will the Home Secretary consider recommending that, when the press complaints commission is set up, it should have the power to award compensation? What is wrong now is that there is access for the rich to the law courts but no redress whatsoever for those who cannot gain access to the law courts. I should welcome an assurance from the Home Secretary on that point.

Mr. Waddington: I think that we should stick to the framework recommended by Calcutt. He makes it absolutely plain that a further step would have to be taken if the lesson was not learnt by the organs of the press about whom complaints have often been made. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on his work on his Right of Reply Bill. Calcutt's conclusion has been expressed faithfully by the hon. Member. Calcutt has concluded that it is not necessary to go for the right of reply if the press complaints commission can recommend publication of a correction and apology and if those further sanctions are available in the event of the press not reacting in an appropriate manner to that last chance.

Sir Dudley Smith: May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to incorporate those eminently sensible suggestions and recommendations into a Bill for the next Session? Will he promise that one last chance really is one last chance and that there will be no fudging at the end of the day? Do the recommendations cover all the press and not just the national press?

Mr. Waddington: Clearly the recommendations cover all the press, including magazines, I have already said that we accept Calcutt's recommendations that, in the events spelt out by Calcutt, we would move from the non-statutory press complaints commission to the statutory press complaints commission, which would then have the powers that I have outlined.
With regard to the criminal offences, I have said that we accept the recommendations in principle, but must consider the precise wording of the offences and what would be appropriate defences to them, When we have carried out proper study along those lines and we think that it is right to go ahead, we will seek the first opportunity to do so.

Mr. John D, Taylor: Does the Secretary of State recognise that we on the Ulster Unionist Bench share the concern about the excesses of the press? However, I am glad to say that such allegations do not apply to the press in Northern Ireland and I am particularly pleased to say that as a publisher of several newspapers in the Province.
However, the allegations have been made against national newspapers, but national newspapers are not restricted to England and Wales: they circulate equally in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Therefore, I am amazed that the Secretary of State expressed some doubt about whether any proposal should also apply to Northern Ireland and Scotland. Does he recognise the inconsistency that a journalist working for a national newspaper based in London would be working under one set of guidelines, but the same journalist working for the same newspaper based in the Belfast office would be operating under different guidelines unless the new proposals apply to the entire United Kingdom?

Mr. Waddington: I said:
We shall also consider whether these proposals might be appropriate for introduction in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I used those cautionary words because the law in Scotland is rather different in many respects from the law in England and Wales. I do not think that I was being unreasonable when I suggested that we should study those differences in law before concluding that the same changes should be made throughout the United Kingdom.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. and learned Friend sounds distinctly tougher than Calcutt reads. I find it puzzling that, in recommendation 11.14, the press are urged
to set the record straight whenever practicable.
One wonders when it would not be practicable to set a record straight. The recommendation continues:
Where the facts are disputed it would generally be appropriate for the newspaper to publish instead a reasonable letter from the individual or organisation concerned.
Why only "generally appropriate"? I accept the code of conduct, but I thought that the qualification, "whenever practicable" weakened the recommendations and that the report sounded a lot better in the words of my right hon. and learned Friend than they read.

Mr. Waddington: Yes, but in that part of the report, Calcutt was setting out the arguments against a right of reply Bill. One of the arguments against such a Bill was the difficulty of ascertaining from a speedy and informal procedure whether there was a factual inaccuracy which should be corrected. If my hon. Friend reads the report carefully, she will find that that is all argumentation about


whether it is right to have a specific right of reply. She must then consider the general arguments that are advanced, as they were in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).

Mr. John Cartwright: May I declare my interest as a member of the Calcutt committee and thank both Front-Bench spokesmen for their positive responses to our recommendations?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the committee saw a long succession of prominent proprietors and editors who came before us to repent of past sins and to assure us that they had all now turned over a new leaf? Unfortunately, we were well aware of the fact that every inquiry into the press over the past 40 years has heard the same pleas and has been persuaded to grant one last chance. That is why we included in great detail the outline of our statutory framework if self-regulation does not work, When the Secretary of State meets the press to discuss those matters, will he make it absolutely crystal clear that this is the end of the road and that, if they do not put their house in order, statutory regulation will follow and they will have absolutely no one to blame but themselves?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that I even need to see the press. They can read what I have said today, and that is the message that I am putting over, I thank the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) for his service on the committee. He is entirely right. Various people gave evidence to the committee and they all said that there had been a sudden reform and that they had seen the light on the road to Damascus. However, Calcutt begged to differ and wondered whether it was likely that such a reform would come about so speedily.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. and learned Friend has produced through the Calcutt inquiry a well-balanced report which shows on the one hand that we need to improve the standards of journalism, and on the other to protect the individual. Does he agree that the press have not got off, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) suggested, without any sanction? Does he agree that they will face the offences which will protect the individual? Does he accept that it is appropriate to give a free press one last chance to put their house in order?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that many hon. Members would agree with the assessment of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) or with his experience. Indeed, his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not take that attitude. He was satisfied that the approach suggested by Calcutt was right and that the recommendations have teeth.

Mr. David Winnick: Are not we entitled to be pessimistic, bearing in mind that, while those matters were under discussion recently in the House, and while the committee was sitting, the tabloid press have been getting worse, in particular the Sunday press with their trashy stories and the rest? Bearing in mind that the Calcutt report states that one of the main reasons why the Press Council has been a failure is the "lack of effective sanctions", is not it absolutely clear that until there are

proper statutory regulations, and until some of the worst offenders—and I have in mind the Sunday tabloids—are dealt with, we will get no improvement? Are not we entitled to believe that, as others have said, as there has been no improvement over the past 40 years, unless real action is taken there is no chance of progress in the next 40 years?

Mr. Waddington: This was a very eminent committee and it has produced a very cogent report, which I invite all hon. Members to read closely, However, I do not believe for a moment that anyone who reads it is likely to conclude that it is a let-off for the press, that the consequences of Calcutt are nil and that things are going to be allowed to continue exactly as they are, I have already spelt out how we can move to a statutory body as a result of the triggers that are spelt out clearly in the report.

Mr. David Sumberg: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the proposal for anonymity for victims of sex offenders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present system, with the Press Council having to act as judge, jury, prosecuting counsel and defending counsel, is entirely unsatisfactory and that decent, honourable and reputable journalists, who are the vast majority, have nothing to fear from the proposals?

Mr. Waddington: No journalist of integrity has anything to fear from these recommendations.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary will have noticed that what scepticism there is about the report and his reaction to it concerns whether the one last chance will be taken and whether the Government will then move to the statutory remedies which should follow the one last chance, Would it help to concentrate minds if the Government held an early debate on a motion making clear that the statutory remedy will be applied if the one last chance is not taken? If such a motion were put down, there would be overwhelming support for it in the House.

Mr. Waddington: I have said that, if the events spelt out by Calcutt take place, the Government will move to set up a statutory press complaints commission. I will certainly talk to the business managers, and they will read what has just been said. I am not reluctant to have a debate—indeed, I am happy to have one, as it is an interesting, long and detailed report. In exchanges of questions and answers such as this, we cannot hope to touch all the ground.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, I am sorry that I have been unable to call all the hon. Members concerned, I have noted the comments of the Home Secretary, and I am sure that the hon. Members who have not been called will receive some precedence in that debate.

BILL PRESENTED

PULP AND PAPER PRODUCTS RESTRICTION

Mr. Robin Squire, supported by Sir George Young, Miss Emma Nicholson, Ms, Joan Walley, Ms, Joyce Quin and Mr. Simon Hughes, presented a Bill to prohibit the manufacture, sale, use, distribution and importing of paper products and wood pulp which contain more than a specified amount of adsorbable organic halogens; to specify offences, penalties and defences; to impose duties and confer powers on district councils as enforcement


authorities; to make provision for the analysis of samples; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed, [Bill 166.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No, 10270/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 8th June 1990, relating to cadmium and its compounds, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Chapman.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day — Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 1

ABORTION ACT 1967

`The Abortion Act 1967 shall be amended as follows:—
In section 1(1) after the word "practitioner" insert

"(a) when a registered medical practitioner has certified in good faith that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twelfth week, or
(b) in any other case,".'.—[Ms, Harman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms, Harriet Harman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 6—Amendment of the Abortion Act 1967—
'.—In section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 (medical termination of pregnancy) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
(2A) The opinion of a single medical practitioner shall be sufficient for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section providing that that practitioner is also of the opinion that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twelfth week.".'.
Amendment No, 31, in clause 34, page 19, line 41, at end insert—
'(1A) After section 1(1) of that Act there is inserted—
(1A) The opinion of one medical practitioner is sufficient for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section if he is also of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twelfth week.".'.
New clause 5—Conscientious objections—
`The Abortion Act 1967 shall be amended as follows:—After section 4 insert—
4A—(1) Any registered medical practitioner who has a conscientious objection to participating in any treatment authorised by this Act who relies upon or intends to rely upon a provision of section 4 above shall be under a duty to notify either—

(a) The Chief Medical Officer of the DHSS, or if they work in Scotland,
(b) The Scottish Home and Health Department.
(2) The Secretary of State shall by Statutory Instrument make regulations to provide—

(a) for requiring any such notification as mentioned in subsection (1) above to be in such form and at such time as may be prescribed by the regulations; and
(b) for the keeping and maintaining of a register of the names of all those persons who have given notification and such register shall be open to public inspection.
(3) Any Statutory Instrument made by virtue of this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
Government amendment No, 54.
New clause 7—Application of Abortion Act 1967
to Northern Ireland—
`In the Abortion Act 1967 in section 2(1) after the word "Scotland" there shall be added the words "and in respect of Northern Ireland"; the reference in section 2(2) to Chief Medical Officers shall include a reference to the Chief Medical Officer of Northern Ireland; the references to the National Health Service Acts shall include references to any Acts and Orders which have the like effect in Northern Ireland; and for section 7(3) there is substituted "This Act extends to Northern Ireland." '.

Ms, Harman: I shall confine my comments to new clause 1, new clause 6 and amendment No, 31, which deal with easier access to early abortion. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms, Richardson) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to address the issues raised by new clause 5.
New clause 1, new clause 6 and amendment No, 31 address the problem of late abortion. There will always be some late abortions when, for example, it is only late in the pregnancy that the pregnancy begins to pose a health risk to the mother, when there is only a late diagnosis of foetal abnormality or when the woman does not realise that she is pregnant until late in the pregnancy. Many late abortions could be carried out earlier. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that early abortion is better than late abortion.
Prompt abortion spares the woman unnecessary stress and anxiety caused by delay and red tape, Early abortion is easier for the doctors and nurses involved because the foetus is less developed, it poses less of a health risk to the woman, there is less likelihood of post-operative complications, and it can be carried out as day surgery so that the woman does not occupy a scarce in-patient bed. Late abortion is to be avoided wherever possible. One important way to avoid late abortion is to improve access to early abortion, and there should be no disagreement about that in the House because the sad facts are well documented.
In its report, "Late Abortion in England and Wales", the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists found that one in five women who had an abortion after the 28th week of pregnancy, where there was no foetal abnormality, had been referred before the end of the 12th week of the pregnancy. It is inexcusable to make a women wait a further eight weeks into the pregnancy and to have an abortion after 20 weeks when she could have had that abortion before the 12th week of the pregnancy. The royal college's report simply backs the findings of earlier studies by the Lane commission, as far back as 1974, and the Policy Studies Institute's reports commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Security and published in 1979, The reports have piled up and the numbers pile up. It is estimated that every year, over 2,000 abortions are performed at over 20 weeks where there is no foetal handicap, It is time that something was done.
The new clauses and amendments offer the House a choice, New clause 1 would make abortion legal up to the 12th week of pregnancy on the woman's request. New clause 6 and amendment No. 31—which are in almost identical terms—would avoid late abortion by allowing abortion with the approval of one doctor instead of the current requirement of the approval of two doctors. The grounds on which the doctor would certify the abortion

would remain the same as under the current law. Those grounds are that the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a threat to the life or to the mental or physical health of the woman, or to her existing children, or that there is serious foetal abnormality. The key point about new clause 6 and amendment No. 31 is that, up to 12 weeks, only one doctor instead of two would be required to certify.
If that step is taken tonight—as I hope that it will be—we shall be moving in line with public opinion. According to the Jowell report on British social attitudes, public support for allowing abortion has increased significantly in the past four years. The report shows that a clear majority are in favour of abortion being allowed by law when the woman decides "on her own" that she does not wish to have the child. A majority now back abortion on request. We should be following the pattern of many other European countries, such as France, Italy, Sweden and Holland, if we allowed easier access to early abortion.
Easing the law and allowing abortion in early pregnancy would enormously help reduce the delay that leads to late abortion. Improving abortion services on the national health service is also important. The law makes abortion legal in this country, but whether a national health service abortion can be obtained depends on where one lives. There is an enormous and unjustified regional variation in the provision of abortion services on the national health service. I should like the Minister to look at these figures.

Mr. David Alton: rose—

Ms, Harman: I shall not give way. I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) will speak later and I do not want to take too much time.
I should like the Minister to look at these figures, which come from her own Department. In north Devon, 95 per cent. of the abortions performed were carried out by the national health service; only 5 per cent, of women who have abortions in north Devon have to seek, or choose to seek, private sector abortion. In south Birmingham, only 1 per cent. of the abortions carried out are performed by the national health service; 99 per cent. are carried out in the private sector. That regional variation cannot be justified because inability to obtain a national health service abortion contributes to the delays that lead to late abortions. We need a prompt NHS abortion service in every region.
I know that, although some hon. Members will be anxious to avoid late abortions, they will be worried that easier access to early abortions will result in more abortions and increase the abortion rate. I do not believe that women use abortion as a casual alternative to contraception. In my view, the new clauses will not affect the abortion rate or the number of abortions that are performed. The abortion rate is largely the result of unwanted pregnancies. The way to cut the abortion rate is to help women to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
5 pm
I hope that all hon. Members who share my concern about the abortion rate will join our campaign for better sex education in schools and for a public information campaign about contraception. We must also see an end to the cuts in family planning services. Those are the measures that will cut the abortion rate. The new clauses,


which seek to ease the legal requirements for early abortion, will cut the number of avoidable late abortions. I urge the House to support them.

Sir David Price: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms, Harman). I specifically commend to the House amendment No. 31, which has been tabled by myself and by my hon. Friends the Members for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), and for Dorset, West (Sir J, Spicer).
The purpose of our amendment is limited, modest and, I believe, useful. I insist that it does not reopen the wider issues that were discussed and settled—at least for the time being—during earlier stages of the Bill's consideration. Its purpose is simple. When an abortion takes place, it is better for the woman concerned that the termination of her pregnancy should take place earlier rather than later. The medical arguments in support of that proposition are so overwhelming that I need not detain the House by repeating them. They were well described by the hon. Member for Peckham.
Therefore, I hope that the House can agree the general proposition that the law should be so drawn that it is not a deterrent to early termination—or, put the other way round, that it is not a positive encouragement to later termination.
All the evidence available to me points to the inevitable conclusion that the need to have two rather than one medical practitioner leads to later termination of pregnancy, but it does not deter termination. Therefore, it is neutral on the broad issue that has been engaging our attention for so long.
The House knows that I am not an enthusiast for abortion—nor do I hold the view that abortion is only a belated form of contraception, Indeed, I am most certainly opposed to abortion on demand. However, I accept the realities of life. Whatever the moral and religious attitudes of any society, abortions take place. The practical issue is whether those abortions take place within or without the law.
Earlier in our proceedings we endeavoured to redefine the legal rules for abortion. Later this evening we will be discussing further refinements of those legal rules. This amendment lies clearly within those legal rules—and, indeed, can accommodate any of the further amendments on the Amendment Paper. As I said earlier—and I now repeat—it is directed simply to make earlier rather than later termination of pregnancy easier.
If the House accepts our amendment, we will, as the hon. Member for Peckham said, be entirely in line with our European partners in the European Community. The vast majority of abortions in Europe take place within the 12-week span. We find from Jennifer Gunning's helpful paper that terminations of pregnancies take place as follows in other European countries. In Denmark, 97·5 per cent. of terminations take place within the 12-week span, In France, the figure is 97 per cent.; and in the Federal Republic of Germany, it is 93 per cent. The figure for the Netherlands is slightly distorted because it apparently has a large intake of foreign women seeking abortions in later pregnancy, largely because until now Belgium has not had legal abortion. Therefore, the figure for the Netherlands is only 89 per cent., but the figure for this country is only 84 per cent.
If, as a result of passing amendment No, 31, we increased that figure of 84 per cent. to above 90 per cent., I believe that we would be making a useful and helpful contribution to a number of the women who are at risk. In addition, other European countries now have a strong bias in their law in favour of a 12-week limit. They include Belgium, Spain and Italy, where the limit is 90 days.
I trust that I have said enough to demonstrate that it is now the general practice in Europe to terminate pregnancies, where the law allows termination, within 12 weeks.
Those who would resist our modest, but helpful amendment, must demonstrate that their insistence upon the opinion of two, rather than one, medical practitioners would provide a degree of medical protection for the pregnant woman which would be substantially diminished if the decision to terminate was taken on the opinion of only one medical practitioner, not two. I await the demonstration of such a proposition. I am unaware of its medical strength.
I trust that I have said enough to persuade the House that amendment No. 31 represents a modest but medically useful change in our abortion law, which does not alter the basic criteria for a legal termination of pregnancy, but will be beneficial to the woman concerned—the woman at risk.

Sir David Steel: It is not often that one is pressed to make a speech in the House, but on this occasion several hon. Members have asked me, as the promoter of the original legislation—the Abortion Act 1967—to give my views on the amendments and new clauses that we are considering. I notice wryly that some of those who were pressing me are not present to have the benefit of what I am about to say—but that's life.
I shall address my remarks briefly to the three issues central to our debate until 7 o'clock, The first has already been discussed—the easing of the regulations for abortions in the early part of pregnancy. The second is the proposed extension of the law to Northern Ireland, and the third is the proposed certification of conscientious objection.
On the first issue, I very much follow the line of argument of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir 13, Price). I vividly remember in our debates on the passage of the original legislation the general agreement in the House and across the Committee—regardless of the views taken about the merits of my Bill—that if abortion was to be carried out, it was best carried out early. Unhappily, the experience of the working of the Act over the past 22 years shows that the desire of the House, as then expressed, has not been fully carried out.
The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms, Harman) mentioned the report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which strikingly reminds us that one fifth of all abortions performed over 20 weeks are on women who had been referred within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. It is significant that that was not an early report—it was published in 1984. But in the 16 or 17 years of the working of the legislation until then, there was clearly still a bottleneck somewhere in the system, resulting in undesirable late abortions which could have been carried out earlier.
There are three reasons why the House should give favourable consideration to the suggestions before us. The first is administrative—too many abortions are needlessly


carried out late. If we could simplify the procedure for earlier abortion, we could transfer later abortions into those carried out earlier in pregnancy—

Mr. D, N, Campbell-Savours: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the arguments that he deployed when promoting his Bill in 1967 to justify the use of two doctors, as opposed to one, and will he outline those arguments to the House?

Sir David Steel: Yes, of course I recall them and I stand by that basic provision. But the House should now look carefully at the experience of the working of the legislation, compared with the intentions at the time—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What were the arguments?

Sir David Steel: I do not deny that there are good arguments for having two doctors—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Sir David Steel: I shall not be deflected from my speech. I shall stick to the narrow issue before us which is whether we should contemplate a change in the law relating to the early period of pregnancy—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What were the arguments?

Sir David Steel: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech later.
What the hon. Member for Eastleigh said about the European experience is instructive. Most of our European neighbours introduced legislation on abortion after we legislated in 1967. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of Belgium which made abortion legal only this year. Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Turkey all adopted a system which makes abortion difficult after the early period of pregnancy but makes it easy in the first stage. In a sense our legislation has been overtaken by the light of experience and views in other countries. There are good administrative grounds for making this minor change to the 1967 Act.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir David Steel: I am reluctant to give way too often, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Leigh: Surely the point that the right hon. Gentleman does not address is that, as he said, in those countries late abortions are more difficult than here. If the amendment is accepted we shall have abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and relatively easy abortion after 12 weeks. That is quite different from the position on the continent.

Sir David Steel: If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall deal with the law on later abortions in the debate on a later amendment. I should like to confine my remarks to the provisions of this amendment.
I do not pretend for a moment that the law in each of the countries that I listed is identical to that of all the others. It is not. In some cases there is almost a total prohibition on late abortion. The hon. Member for Eastleigh gave the figures for Denmark, where there is almost total prohibition after 12 weeks of pregnancy. It is

most difficult to obtain an abortion after 12 weeks. In other countries it is relatively easy, but there is still a distinction between the two periods of pregnancy. We should be wise to adopt that distinction.
The second reason why I favour the change is the simple reason of publicity. If it becomes known that, in short, the law of the land states clearly that abortion before the 12th week is administratively easier and that the law encourages abortion before the 12th week of pregnancy, if it must take place at all, people will be more likely to present themselves earlier. In support of that I cite a letter from the Brook advisory clinic. It tells us:
While recognising that Parliament has now voted for a 24 week upper limit for the termination of pregnancy we still have many concerns for those vulnerable young people who turn to us late in pregnancy. Many fail to recognise the signs and symptoms of pregnancy through a lack of sex education and appropriate services to which they may turn.
If it enters people's minds that there is a new 12-week cut-off before which abortion is relatively simple to obtain and after which the administrative complications and medical referrals are much more difficult, we shall take a major step towards pushing abortions into the earlier part of pregnancy.
The third argument that I adduce is that abortion techniques have changed since we legislated in 1967. In those days almost all abortions were carried out by one form of surgery or another. Nowadays they can be carried out by injection or what is euphemistically called the morning-after pill, which is an early abortifacient. There have always been legal doubts about whether the morning-after pill can be prescribed within the present abortion law. The amendment would remove that doubt because a single doctor could prescribe the drug, which works in the early period of pregnancy. For all the reasons that I have given, I favour the proposal of the hon. Members for Peckham and for Eastleigh and I shall support them in the Lobby.
Government amendment No. 54 deals with whether the law should extend to Northern Ireland. I cannot remember exactly why the 1967 Act was not extended to Northern Ireland, but I suspect that one reason was that in those days Stormont still existed. We had only a small coterie of Northern Ireland Members in the House. Again, we are entitled to examine the practice of the law since 1967. Ireland—both the north and the south—is now the only country in Europe where abortion has not been legalized. It is no good people saying that abortion does not take place in Northern Ireland. We have the figures for women who come from Northern Ireland to obtain abortions in England and Wales. In 1988 the figure was 1,815. That does not include those who made the journey to Scotland, for which I do not have the figure to hand. We are talking about almost 2,000 women a year who come to Britain from Northern Ireland for abortions. Again, that has the effect of causing late abortions. By the time a referral has been made and a place found for a woman, precious weeks have passed. The extension of the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland would reduce the number of late abortions.
We must also consider the cost. If the national health service cannot provide the facility in Northern Ireland, it is unlikely that much of the NHS will provide it on the mainland. The result is that in the main such women go to private clinics. On top of that, they have the cost of travel, so the cost of abortion becomes prohibitive and may be a cause of further delay.
A survey has been carried out among members of the British Medical Association in Northern Ireland. The proposal in the amendment is supported by the majority of doctors in the Province.
A further argument for extending the Act relates to the section which deals with foetal abnormality. Ante-natal screening for foetal abnormality is not widely offered in Northern Ireland because if an abnormality is detected termination cannot be offered under the present law. That should be changed.

Rev, Ian Paisley: rose—

Mr. Alton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir David Steel: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. For all the reasons that I have given, I believe that it is right to extend the legislation to the Province of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Alton: Will the right hon. Gentleman cite the reference in the BMA report that he quoted to the House? The latest poll that was conducted among doctors in Northern Ireland showed that over 80 per cent. were entirely opposed to extending the legislation to the Province. The latest opinion poll in Northern Ireland showed that 90 per cent. of people were opposed to it. Only last week 60,000 signatures were presented from people in Northern Ireland against the extension. Does he agree that on any other occasion he would recognise that, where Catholic and Protestant opinion in Northern Ireland is united and there is a shared platform, public opinion should he listened to?

Sir David Steel: I am prepared to concede to my hon. Friend, who, like me, has some knowledge of the Province, that the majority of public opinion in Northern Ireland is probably against the extension. That is a valid point for the House to ponder. However, we must decide whether that prevailing opinion in the Province should lead us to deny a facility and a right which is extended to all other female citizens of the United Kingdom, That is the issue before us.
I do not pretend that extending the Act will be met with enthusiasm, but I do not see how my hon. Friend can defend the fact that Northern Irish women must travel to Britain to obtain something which they cannot obtain in their own Province. He cannot say that there is no requirement for abortion when the figures show that that is what happens and that it results in delay and later abortions. That is the argument with which I counter my hon. Friend's argument. I do not deny that the figures that he produced are right.

Mr. Alton: What is the reference for the right hon. Gentleman's figure?

Sir David Steel: I shall find the reference in my papers; I do not have it to hand.
New clause 5, which deals with a register of conscientious objection, has not yet been spoken to. I am afraid that at this point I part company with the hon. Member for Peckham. Together with the now Lord St. John of Fawsley I introduced the conscience clause in 1967 although we had opposite views on the substance of the

Bill. I have taken an absolutely consistent view on the matter of conscience. I fought within my own party conference on the issue.
Abortion divides hon. Member from hon. Member, church from church and doctor from doctor, so group dynamics should never be made to operate. The individual conscience is important. I have tried to stop my party passing resolutions on the subject which would bind its members. I regret that the Labour party has proposed such resolutions. I regret even that there is a two-line Whip on the Third Reading of the Bill. I am wholly consistent. I object to the idea that a conscience should somehow be held in a public register. That seems to me a repugnant concept. It would bring undue pressure to bear on those who hold that view.
I do not deny that, as a result of the exercise of that conscientious objection by some doctors, in some cases women would be denied the facility and the right to which they are entitled. However, in the general practices of which I am aware the doctor who holds that conscientious objection tells the patient so and refers her to doctor X who will consider her case. That is proper, good practice.
The idea of a public register of conscience is objectionable and I shall not support new clause 5.

Sir Bernard Braine: Whatever my disagreement has been with the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D, Steel) since he introduced his Bill, I pay honour to him for sticking to his guns regarding the necessity for preserving the right of conscience in this matter.
I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if an abortion—always a tragic happening—is to be carried out, the earlier the better, given that there are satisfactory grounds for it and proper medical approval and attention, That proviso is absolutely key.
I am profoundly disturbed by the group of amendments now under discussion, the like of which I have not heard discussed in this place in the 40
years I have sat here, I venture to suggest that public opinion will be outraged when it learns what has been advocated today.
On 2 May I wrote a letter to a colleague in the House who was canvassing support for an amendment that would allow abortions up to 12 weeks on the agreement of a single doctor. We have been repeatedly told that new clauses 1 and 6 and amendment No, 31 will not allow abortion on demand, but, whatever is said, everyone knows that under the present system, when two doctors' signatures are required, collusion sometimes occurs, Abortions for the most trifling reason are granted on one ground or another. Over the years there have been enough scandals for me not to go into detail. If only one doctor's signature is now to be required it is inevitable that the situation will get worse.
My thoughts on this matter have not been dreamed up in response to what has been said this afternoon. I shall quote from the letter that I sent to my colleague on 2 May as it sets out the history of the matter and its inherent dangers, I wrote:
The idea of allowing abortion on the agreement of only one doctor…was first floated by Government advisers as far back as 1977. At that time it was suggested that the development of abortifacient drugs would enable women to abort at home, thus diminishing the need for late abortion.
Incidentally, at that time no one ever mentioned legalizing abortion up to birth, but the Bill, as it is presently drafted, would permit that in certain circumstances.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Not true.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: How many abortions have taken place as late as that in Scotland, where the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 has never applied?

Sir Bernard Braine: Over the years, I have participated in debates relating to England and Wales and I have learnt never to engage in a discussion of the different approaches and nuances involved in Scottish practice. After all the disappointments in the world cup I must say that my admiration for Scottish things has gone up greatly. I shall not tangle with the hon. Gentleman about this, except to say that there are differences.
My letter continued that the idea of allowing abortions on the agreement of a single doctor had then been floated again by Government advisers at the time of the Corrie Bill, when the development of abortifacient drugs was stressed once again. My letter stated:
Today, of course, we have RU 486 and the Government could no doubt save millions of pound through a law enabling women to be aborted at home by their own GPs"—
if the proposals that we are debating are accepted, we shall be talking about not two doctors, but one. I also wrote that at that particular stage—the letter was written on 2 May—there was no attempt to amend section 1(3) of the Abortion Act with regard to the operation being carried out in an "approved place".
This week, however, the final piece in the jigsaw is found. Later today we shall debate amendment No. 29, which would allow the Secretary of State to extend the meaning of approved places for abortion treatment consisting primarily in the use of medicines or, more bluntly, abortifacient drugs.
New clauses 1 and 6 and amendment No. 31, together with amendment No. 29, would therefore change the law to allow abortions through abortifacient drugs such as RU 486 to be carried out by one doctor in the patient's home. The Secretary of State must give us a clear explanation as to why we should change the meaning of "an approved place" in order to allow abortion in the home. That is a grave matter.
Over the years and throughout our debates on abortion the spectre of the back-street abortionist has been raised. Pro-abortionists have always failed to mention, however, that before 1967, many back-street abortionists were doctors or midwives aborting women in their own homes or in a private clinic.
I am one of the few hon. Members still in the House who—after the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale had had his Bill enacted—served on the Select Committee on Abortion, which met on 15 March 1976 to hear evidence from Sir John Peel. Sir John was a former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, he was then president of the British Medical Association and he was one of the most distinguished gynaecologists of that time. It is important to record what he told that Committee, on page 78 of the minutes of evidence. Sir John was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) what effect the 1967 Act had had on illegal back-street abortions:
if the present Act were tightened, would this be likely to lead to a substantial increase in the number of illegal back-street abortions?
Sir John replied:
I always did think that the back-street abortion prior to the 1967 Act was nothing like as common an event as it was

thought to be, and the statistics alone indicated that the back-street abortionist so-called was a pretty efficient operator. I think that a lot of the people who would be labelled back-street abortionists before the Act are now front-street abortionists, and technologically they are very competent at doing the particular job. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I must say on behalf of many women while the Father of the House is quoting somebody else's opinion that the thought of women having to return to back-street abortionists fills many of us with horror.

Sir Bernard Braine: It has always filled me with horror, too. My hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, has not been following the drift of my argument. I am describing the sort of people whom Sir John thought were engaged in the business of back-street abortions prior to the Act.

Miss Emma Nicholson: rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: No, I shall not give way at this stage, because I wish to pay tribute to the fact that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale made a genuine attempt in 1967 to clean up an extremely unsatisfactory situation. However, I am quoting from evidence given nine years later into the working of that Act.
The right hon. Gentleman's measure introduced certain improvements, but there were also some abuses, and I am sure that he would agree with that. A later Bill introduced by Mr. James White seeking greater control over abortion obtained a big majority, the House will recall, but the Government of the day decided that the matter was so technical and difficult that, rather than proceed, they would set up a Select Committee to look into the issue in great detail.
I was a member of that Select Committee, as was the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and a number of hon. Members who are in the House to this day. We took evidence, and I have been quoting from evidence given by the president of the British Medical Association, a former extremely distinguished gynaecologist with a worldwide reputation. I am merely reporting to the House what he said, and hon. Members can draw their own conclusions.
The statement made by Sir John Peel at that time is highly relevant now. The combination of amendments now before the House would revive back-street abortions of the type to which he was referring, without the safeguard of a second medical opinion, which has always been thought necessary since the passage of the right hon. Gentleman's measure. If we are to reach a sensible, balanced, rational and decent conclusion to these deliberations, we must have a clear lead from the Minister.
The idea of easier abortion on the authority of one doctor, as I pointed out, had been put forward by Government advisers on several occasions in the past. We must be told whether the same advice is being given to the Government now. I leave the matter there. The House must search its conscience in deciding whether the proposals inherent in the group of amendments that we are now considering can be accepted, knowing in our hearts what the reality is in the world of abortion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I will take the House into my confidence because so many hon. Members wish to participate in the proceedings, and rightly so. I urge those whom I call to speak for seven to 10 minutes so that we can have all points of view in this important debate aired.

Mr. Alton: I shall try to stay within that time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Three questions are before the House as we debate this group of new clauses and amendments. The first is whether abortion should be allowed up to 12 weeks; the second concerns changes to the conscience clause; and the third refers to Northern Ireland.
In 1967, when the original legislation was laid before the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), in trying to tackle the problem of back-street abortions, said it was not the purpose of his measure to create abortion on demand. Yet, as one who has been strongly involved with this issue, I have not received a letter from anyone saying that they have been unable, under the 1967 legislation, to obtain an abortion in this country.
At a time when one in five pregnancies ends in abortion —184,000 each year—one issue should unite every hon. Member, and that is a desire to reduce the total number of abortions. So missing from the proposal of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is the second part of the equation. She and my right hon. Friend referred to the European situation but, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said, abortion there is restricted in the later periods—a point on which I have tried to concentrate the minds of hon. Members on many occasions.
The average European Community upper time limit is 12 to 14 weeks. Before the House now is a time limit of 24 weeks in most cases and in some cases right the way up to birth. So we are being asked to extend the legislation to provide abortion—abortion on demand, which we were told in 1967 would not happen, and in a climate of 184,000 abortions a year—up until birth.
We have been told today that one reason for that is the issue of delay. The hon. Member for Peckham omitted to tell the House that the 1984 report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said:
The major reason for delay at 15 to 19 weeks is the wait for a prostaglandin abortion, which of course must be done late, by its very nature.
It added:
In less than 5 per cent. of cases, the failure to recognise pregnancy was a delay definitely attributable to the doctor.
However much one may wish to criticise the NHS on other occasions, as the majority of late abortions concern people from overseas, who are unable to obtain abortions in their own countries—last year women from over 100 countries came here for abortions—we can hardly blame them on the NHS. So let us clearly understand what we are being asked to agree today.
In none of the speeches made for the group of amendments has anything been said about the child, even though the child is another vital part of the equation. How can we talk about abortion without thinking of the effects on the child? Does not the child have some rights? As we reach the final stages of the Bill, the House is being asked to allow abortion right up to birth if the unborn child is handicapped. We shall debate that issue on the next

amendment, after the 7 o'clock vote. In the context of that amendment, hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot have much faith in the desire of hon. Members to preserve the minimal rights of the child. Indeed, having unlinked the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1920 from the Abortion Act 1967, we have made the position infinitely worse.
In these debates we rarely talk about post-abortion trauma. But we must consider the effects of an abortion on the woman. I have received hundreds of letters from women describing the effects of early and late abortions. It is not an easy operation. Indeed, it is a disaster for everybody involved. Frequently people are psychologically scarred for life.
Secondly—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Peckham would not give way when I tried to intervene in her speech and is continually trying to make a point from a sedentary position during mine, but I am happy to give way to allow her to make it.

Ms. Harman: I was just hoping that as the hon. Gentleman has expressed his concern about the abortion rate he might turn his attention to preventing unwanted pregnancies by talking about sex education and family planning. He has accused us of never mentioning the child, but we try to prevent unwanted pregnancies. He never seems to talk about measures that would lower the abortion rate by preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Mr. Alton: In that case the hon. Lady does not listen. I talk at great length on those subjects. I believe that we should talk more openly about sexuality—and more responsibly, a word rarely used. We talk about our rights but not about our responsibilities to each other. We should put sexual relations in that context. Destroying the consequences of our actions is not the solution for anyone; it is not a solution to a problem if another person's life is ended. We must consider the position of the unborn child, and of the mother and family.
As for the conscience clause, there are serious reasons why the House should resist the blacklist proposal—I am happy to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale about that. This amendment is aimed at criminalising doctors who cannot in all conscience participate in abortions. It is intended to intimidate doctors who might take the conscience clause. The amendment institutionalises job discrimination by allowing employers to check the register before interviewing applicants. In the past, employers have not been allowed to specify abortion experience as necessary for a post. If the amendment is passed, excellent gynaecologists will be passed over because their names appear on the register. That opens the door to intimidation by a minority of pro-abortion activists who will be able to identify targets with ease—as we witnessed during recent debates on abortion legislation.
There is no evidence that any woman has been unable to obtain an abortion because of the conscience clause in its present form. To make it a criminal offence not to register publicly a conscientious objection is unprecedented and designed to prosecute those with sincerely held beliefs. This is a deeply repugnant proposal; it is authoritarian and illiberal and the House should reject it.
Thirdly, I turn to the extension to Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, this issue unites people on both sides of the divide there. It is extraordinarily arrogant of the House not to listen to the voices in Northern Ireland. At a


meeting only last week representatives of the DUP—for instance, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea)—the leader of the Ulster Unionists, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) of the SDLP came together on the same platform. Sixty thousand signatures have been received from groups in the Province opposed to the extension of the legislation.
In 1984—the last time this was considered—the Northern Ireland Assembly voted 20 to one against an extension to Northern Ireland. Every political party apart from Sinn Fein—even it recently modified its policy to one of neutrality—opposes the extension of the legislation. Eighteen councils are against extension and none is in favour. A poll of doctors in 1987 showed that 90 per cent. were against extension and a Gallup poll in 1982 found that 83 per cent. of people expressing an opinion were opposed to social abortions. So the people of Northern Ireland oppose an extension of the legislation and their views should be heard.
This issue was not raised on Second Reading and members of the Committee had no chance to consider it in Committee. It is monstrous that at this late stage of proceedings it should be proposed that the legislation be extended to Northern Ireland against the wishes of its representatives and people. I wholeheartedly urge the House to oppose the recommendation.

Miss Emma Nicholson: In this country abortion used to be the most common method of contraception, and it still is in the developing world. There are 60 million abortions a year worldwide, 25 million of which are carried out illegally, and a leading cause of death among mothers in the developing countries is septic abortion. In Romania the death rate from abortion rose sevenfold when restrictive abortion laws were introduced in 1966.
In the United Kingdom we have moved a long way; we have more enlightened thinking these days. Contraception is readily available; there is far greater education, in schools and through other organisations, on ways of limiting the family, and I suggest there has been a dramatic removal of the stigma of using birth control methods—a stigma that was common before the Abortion Act 1967. But there is still some way to go, which is why I introduced new clause 5 in the previous debate on this issue. I was grateful then to the House for giving me the time in which to discuss it, and I am enormously grateful to all hon. Members who have shown an interest in this crucial proposal.
I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) dismissed my wish to discuss this important point with him as an attempt to canvass support. The issue is more important than that.
England and Wales have the smallest proportion in the European Community of legal abortions at eight weeks or under, and the highest percentage of abortions performed at 13 to 16 weeks and at 17 weeks and over. Yet the trend among the general public has been towards earlier abortions all the time. In 1968, 61 per cent. of all abortions took place under 13 weeks; the figure in 1988 was 84 per cent. So there has been a tremendous move towards earlier

abortions and a corresponding reduction in abortions performed between 13 and 19 weeks—from 34 per cent. to 13 per cent.
Among women seeking abortions and among the medical profession there has been a move towards earlier abortions. In the context of the massive efforts of the pro-life campaign in the House to limit later abortions, it is of great interest to us all to recognise that between 1968 and 1988 abortions at more than 20 weeks remained at a steady 3 per cent. So the shift has been downwards, apart from odd abortions performed after 20 weeks, and I find that immensely encouraging.
I am encouraged because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and other hon. Members, I believe that if abortion is to take place, the earlier the better, because the trauma for mothers and the unfortunate nurses and gynaecologists, who have other things to do besides perform abortions, is correspondingly reduced. There are also concomitant and massive economic savings in NHS beds and other medical services.
The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) has already mentioned north Devon, which has an interesting system of immediate telephone referral from the GP to the consultant. That means that a mother who presents herself for an abortion is given an appointment with a consultant within one day. She will then have an abortion within a week. Nearly all abortions in north Devon are carried out before 12 weeks. That is because the consultant is in favour of early abortions, but early abortions are so sought after throughout Britain that about half the abortions carried out by that gynaecologist are performed on women from outside north Devon.
I want to knock on the head the idea that earlier abortions have led to a higher incidence of abortions. In the 11 to 19-year-old age group in north Devon, 8.9 per 1,000 mothers have an abortion, compared with 14·1 per 1,000 nationally—that is considerably lower. In the whole age group on whom abortions are performed—women between the ages of 11 and 49—the figures are 5·7 per 1,000 in north Devon, compared with 12·5 per 1,000 in the rest of the United Kingdom. Early abortions do not lead to a rise in the number of abortions. One could postulate that they lead to fewer. In the developing countries where there are illegal and septic abortions, a lack of contraceptive facilities and where legal abortions are not available, about 60 women per 1,000 present themselves for abortion.
As I said, easy and early abortion does not lead to higher abortion rates. It is caused by good school education, enlightened gynaecologists and a good social attitude. We cannot replicate that throughout the United Kingdom, much as we would like to. It is clear that we have not managed to do so, hence the incidence of later abortions outside north Devon and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
I shall deal finally with public opinion and the opinion of gynaecologists. A series of polls carried out from 1979 to 1988 asked whether the choice to continue pregnancy should be left to the woman in consultation with her doctor. That proposition was supported by 80 per cent. of the public and by 73 per cent. of gynaecologists. Amendment No. 31 does not offer the right to choose. It does not tread that difficult path in total deference to the susceptibilities of Parliament's conscience. It fits in neatly with public opinion and chimes in with informed medical opinion—the medical specialists and the gynaecologists. It


is in line with European Community thinking and the later legislation which resulted from that and which was introduced after our 1967 Act. More important, it sends the proper signal to society as a whole that if abortions are to take place we should get them over and done with.

Mr. A.E.P. Duffy: I oppose new clause 1, which would allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and I support amendment No. 54, which would extend the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland. New clause 1 will allow abortion with no regard for mental, medical or eugenic reasons following a request by the mother to any doctor.
The Abortion Act 1967 required that abortion should be carried out for only specific medical reasons. I presume that that was the purpose of the probing question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). Under that Act a second opinion and a signature were required to ensure the safety of the mother and the baby. Under new clause 1 none of those safeguards would apply to demands for abortion where the pregnancy has not exceeded 12 weeks. That saddens me because it seems only to emphasise present trends.
In my city of Sheffield the number of abortions has risen steadily throughout the past decade and, contrary to the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) about experience in other parts of England, an increasing number of those abortions have been carried out on the national health service. I am worried not only about the trends, but about the manner in which that will prejudice the social climate about which we have heard in the debates today and yesterday. We heard about it in the speech by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). In today's debate hon. Members appear to be concerned about doctors, while in yesterday's debate they were worried about donors and about almost everyone but the child, especially the unborn child.
Disregard for the sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn child has a bad effect on our society. I repeat that there has been too much evidence of that not only today but during yesterday's debate and in the debates that we had five or six weeks ago. That makes me wonder whether there will be abuse.
I was interested to hear the statistics from north Devon. We need more such breakdowns and the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West is to be commended. I tried to collect such statistics in Sheffield. During the 1980s no abortions were sought on the ground that the life of the expectant mother was at risk, and fewer than 1 per cent. were sought on the ground of handicap. I presume that the 1,500 unborn children who are killed every year in Sheffield are healthy.
I have tried and failed to find out something about the motives for those abortions, and I invite hon. Members to try to find out what happens in their constituencies under section 2 of the 1967 Act. I and my hon. Friends have tried. Obviously, most abortions are performed under section 2. The Secretary of State for Health could tell us the reasons for those abortions and I invite him to do so. On 24 April I tried my darndest to intervene in the speech by the Minister for Health. I said then that it would be helpful on Report for the Secretary of State or his Minister to let the House have more information about section 2.
I fear abuse because new clause 1 requires no reason for abortion other than the mother's demand. It will abandon all pretence of medical causes and will open the door to more social abortions, abortions of convenience. I suspect that it will allow abortion on all sorts of specious grounds, which I shall not go into now. The doctor's position will be made ambiguous by the new clause. He will not be required to consider medical reasons or the safety of the patient.
The delay argument has been dealt with effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). It is claimed that the new clause will reduce delays in obtaining abortions and lower the number of late abortions. However, he reminded us of the 1984 study and report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. That body has produced other studies. The new clause would put specific pressures on the mother, and we can well imagine them. I need not dwell on them because every hon. Member on whatever side of the argument will be well aware of them.
A comparison has been drawn between new clause I and the situation in Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, who moved new clause 1, cited European experience but she did not say that European countries that allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks also severely restrict abortion after 12 weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill mentioned that, but I should like to spell it out. There are no proposals to restrict the availability of an abortion in Britain after 12 weeks. On the contrary, we are moving in another direction. None of those European countries has an appreciably lower rate of abortion than Britain. Some of them have a higher rate and I fear that the new clause will substantially increase the number of abortions and the abuse of abortion facilities.
As I said, I support amendment No. 54, which would extend the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland. It now seems in our society that human life is to have value only under certain conditions and new clause 1, which I have just dealt with, highlights just how much further society has drifted towards abortion on demand and towards the view that human life is disposable.
Health in Northern Ireland was covered by transferred powers to the old Stormont Parliament and to the power-sharing executive. It has certainly been Opposition policy, although this is not a party political matter, to interfere as little as possible in matters that should properly be devolved to a legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland. Specifically and directly health is one matter that would be transferred to a devolved Assembly. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in his place and I invite him to say that the talks that he is so impressively and gallantly trying to bring about in Northern Ireland will deal with the devolution of health. I suspect that that matter is near the top of his agenda.
I do not know how the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can sit so complacently alongside the Secretary of State for Health. He must know in his heart that the proposal will be carried unless the Secretary of State for Health goes into battle against it. He must know that the devolution argument, for people in Northern Ireland to take control of their affairs, is not helped when pressure groups of whatever hue or on whatever issue seek to extend the 1967 Act, which did not apply to Northern Ireland, by the back door.
It is a neo-colonialist attitude, patronising in the extreme, to say that the House knows better than all the


elected Members for Northern Ireland who are united, as we shall hear, on this, as on other matters, but especially on medical, ethical and moral questions and matters of faith.
If a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland sought to alter the legislation, will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland confirm that it could not do so without a separate Westminster Act of Parliament amending British legislation? We are effectively tying the hands, in what would be a transferred area, of any future devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland with legislative powers.
I oppose new clause 1, but I support amendment No. 54.

6 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley: My colleagues and I oppose new clauses 1 and 6, amendment No. 31 and new clauses 5 and 7, and support amendment No. 54. I shall make a brief speech to allow others the opportunity to speak, and I want to concentrate on my opposition to new clause 7.
I want to make a protest on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland. If the House is to legislate for Northern Ireland, let it do so decently and in order, and let it give Northern Ireland representatives, few though they be, an opportunity to discuss in the House every clause of a Bill, from its presentation to its Third Reading, and to deal with a matter that runs to the very gut and heart of the Ulster people. I must protest that it is mischievous to foist such a new clause on the House and on the people of Northern Ireland on Report.
I am not just speaking on behalf of the Protestant section of the community; I am speaking on behalf of my entire constituency and the entire constituency of Northern Ireland. I have had the highest vote in three elections to the European Parliament, so I speak for the whole Province on this issue.
I have consulted my parliamentary colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party and they are at one with the Unionists—the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists and the Popular Unionists, represented by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). We are at one on the issue.
The House should have a little respite for unity in Northern Ireland. The House oft times thinks that there is no unity in Northern Ireland. I have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House say, "Oh, if only you would agree, we would give you what you agreed on." Now we come to something that we agree on and we are told no. The new clause is to be rammed through the House on Report.
The overwhelming opposition is amazing, because it stretches from the Unionist parties to the nationalist SDLP. It stretches from the Churches to the students union of Queen's university, which in no way could be called a Conservative or right-wing body.
I was amazed to hear the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) tell us that the medical profession in Northern Ireland are in some sort of way overwhelmingly in support of the measure. That is definitely not true. The medical profession were canvassed by Dr. Ferguson and 1,575 replied, 60 per cent. of whom were opposed to it. How can

any hon. Member tell the House that the medical profession are overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation being extended to Northern Ireland?
I want to make it perfectly clear that I resent what the right hon. Gentleman said in another regard. Foetal abnormality, rape, risk to the physical health of a mother and severe psychological trauma are catered for in Northern Ireland. Abortions are available in such cases. I resent the suggestion that we are opposed to the woman having any protection. I am all for protecting the woman, but I am for protecting the child as well. I have made that clear in other speeches in the House.
In 1967, it was argued that, except we had abortion by law, there would be an increase in illegitimacy, child abuse and juvenile crime. One would have thought that, after 1967, we would have an ordered society and those problems would practically disappear. But today's figures show that illegitimacy, child abuse and juvenile crime are less per head of the population in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Let no hon. Member say that abortion will raise the ethical standards of the people.
Then we heard that there would be back-street abortions. There is no evidence of that in Northern Ireland. The number of deaths that result from abortion is lower in Northern Ireland than in any of the regions of England. Since 1967, there have been 3 million abortions, twice the population of Northern Ireland—3 million tiny lives snuffed out—and it has not led to a well-adjusted generation. We need to face up to that.
If the matter is to be dealt with in Northern Ireland —we do not have a local assembly; we do not even have proper representative local government—there should be a referendum on the matter. Let the people of Northern Ireland say exactly what should be done.
I repeat that all the parties are united. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has just come into the House. I was mentioning before he came in that his party was united with us all in our opposition to abortions. The three parties represented in the House are opposed to the measure. We have 26 local councils. They have no real power, but 18 of them have debated the measure and voted against it. None of the remaining councils were prepared to say that they wanted it. Therefore, no council went on record as wanting the measure. The Northern Ireland Assembly voted 20:1 against it, although the SDLP was not present at that Assembly, which we regret.
Reference was made to the Gallup poll, in which 83 per cent. of the Northern Ireland community expressed opposition to abortion when sought by unmarried women or those not wishing to have a larger family.

Rev. William McCrea: My hon. Friend referred to the impression that is often given that the boats are filled with women from Northern Ireland crossing the Irish sea to have an abortion on the mainland. Is he aware that only 0·5 per cent. of the ladies concerned are from the Province and that 99·5 per cent. of women in the Province want nothing to do with abortion and stand with their public representatives in opposing the Bill? The facts should be put before the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I appeal to the House to reject the Bill and to let the people of Northern Ireland speak up. Winston Churchill said that one should trust the people.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I reinforce the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the position taken by all political parties in the north of Ireland. I know that there will not be time for me to contribute to the debate, but I want to make it clear that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) represents the views of all the political parties in the north of Ireland on an issue about which the people there feel very strongly. There can be no doubt that on this occasion all the political parties there, because they understand the seriousness of the proposal, are united in their opposition.
It would be interesting to calculate the number of times since I first entered the House that all the Northern Ireland parties have voted together. The result might astound those who look at us somewhat askance. There can be no doubt that in this case we are united in our opposition to a measure that we think would be bad for Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh for his helpful intervention. I do not usually give way to him so quickly, but I was delighted to do so on this occasion. I must leave matters there, because my time is up.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I speak in support of new clause 7 and in opposition to Government amendment No. 54. The Abortion Act 1967 was never extended to Northern Ireland. The law governing that issue in Northern Ireland is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which entirely prohibits abortion with only one exception. The 1861 Act states that any person performing, attempting and or assisting in any abortion shall be guilty of a felony and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be kept in penal servitude for life
—except where an abortion is absolutely necessary to save a woman's life.
That came about because the 1861 Act was amended for Northern Ireland in 1945 as a consequence of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1921. That allows an abortion to be performed in order to save a woman's life, but only after 28 weeks of pregnancy. That anomaly arises because the Infant Life (Preservation) Act deals only with the period after the 28th week of pregnancy and up until after the birth. As the 1861 Act still governs the first seven months of pregnancy, there is no legal provision for abortion in Northern Ireland during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
I refer to two cases reported in the New Statesman of 16 October 1987. The first concerns a girl of 14 whose father made her pregnant. Northern Ireland law did not guarantee her an abortion, but a consultant eventually agreed that her pregnancy should be terminated. As she was already 20 weeks pregnant, she was put on a prostaglandin drip for 48 hours. After initiating that treatment, the consultant went off duty. Some hours later, after the girl's labour had begun, the doctor on night duty removed the drip because he had ethical objections to abortion. On discovering that the following night, a woman doctor restored the drip and the pregnancy was subsequently terminated.
In another case, a woman of 26 who already had four young children found she was 11 weeks pregnant. She had bouts of anxiety and depression and was experiencing difficulties in her marriage. She suffered from a congenital heart defect and a chronic kidney infection. The consultant

to whom she was referred for termination of her pregnancy on those grounds pronounced her fit to continue the pregnancy. As she was unable to afford the the fare to England to have an abortion, she gave birth to an unwanted baby.
6.15 pm
That is a horrifying state of affairs. Right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken against the extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland may feel that, if they could become pregnant even in the same circumstances, they would not choose to have an abortion. My objection is to making criminals of the women who do make that choice. Even within the limits recognised as necessary to save a woman's life, it is commonsense that, the earlier an abortion is performed, the less traumatic and life-endangering it is likely to be. In any event, medical judgment in individual cases as to what is the least hazardous point at which to perform an abortion should be of paramount importance. If the law sets parameters that do not allow medical judgments to be freely exercised, it must be defective.
Few doctors would perform an abortion after 28 weeks in any case because of the greater risks and the likely effects on the woman's emotional state and mental health—and because of their own views on the moral aspects. In reality, abortion is extremely rare in Northern Ireland. Any woman there who finds herself pregnant must accept her lot, no matter the problems and difficulties that drove her to consider an abortion in the first place, in the realisation that she was likely to be left to get on with it, often with little or no help.
Alternatively, she can tell lies to all and sundry to explain away her brief disappearance while she goes to Britain and pays for a legal abortion that she may be unable to afford. The current all-in cost is around £300. She would have to do that without any assistance from her family or friends, and in the absence of any medical back-up when she returned home. Finally, she could opt for a back-street abortion, with all attendant risks to her health and life from which women in Great Britain were set free in 1967.
Every year, thousands of women from Northern Ireland come to Great Britain for abortions. In 1988, 1,815 of them attended clinics in England and Wales. Since 1978, more than 20,000 women have come over to England and Wales for abortions, and many more give a false address in Britain. I wonder if right hon. and hon. Members who think that they are speaking for their constituents speak also for those 20,000 women who were forced to come to Britain for an abortion.
I will tell the House of the experience of one woman who came to Britain 14 years ago for such an operation. She had always been anti-abortion, but when faced with an abortion in an unhappy marriage that was on the verge of breaking up, she felt that she had no choice. Some right hon. and hon. Members may feel that they would have done otherwise in her circumstances—but most can never experience pregnancy, let alone find themselves in that woman's dilemma. I refuse to regard her as a criminal for making the decision that she did.
That woman has related her experiences in the clinic that she used. Of the 12 women in the ward, only nine were Irish and only one was under 16. Most were middle-aged women who had been caught out by the menopause. She


was one of the few between 20 and 25 years of age that the mythology presents as being the most common group. Only two of the 12 women were unmarried.
It is not as though contraception is freely available in Northern Ireland. Many women, and especially those living outside the urban areas, are reluctant to seek advice on contraception and counselling, particularly from their family doctor. Another consequence of the current law is that there is a virtual absence of screening procedures for identifying conditions such as Down's syndrome or spina bifida, though such tests are easily available in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is time that the women of Northern Ireland were freed from the burden that has been lifted from women in similar circumstances in Scotland, England and Wales. We should ensure that women receive support and back-up, whatever decision they take. New clause 7 merely asks that the law applying in Great Britain, which recognises the risks to women's health and to life itself, and the other legitimate reasons for abortion that Parliament recognised, should be equally valid and to the point for women in Northern Ireland and should extend to them as well.
Hon. Members have made a point about imposing legislation if all the elected representatives are opposed to it. I must point out that no one will be made to have an abortion who does not want one, and no one will be made to carry out an abortion if they are opposed to doing so. We are simply saying that it is high time that elected Members of Parliament, who are not speaking for women who have sought abortions, recognised the fact that some women in Northern Ireland will want an abortion at some time in their lives, even if they are opposed to it at the moment. Those hon. Members should recognise the freedom of women to do what they want.

Rev. William McCrea: I have listened to the hon. Lady's speech carefully and have noticed that one thing is absent—she has never once mentioned that the child being aborted is a human being. Before she sits down, will she please give some cognisance to the fact that children have some rights? I speak as a father with five children at home.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am sorry that I gave way for the hon. Gentleman to make that point. In the three cases that I mentioned—I do not have time to go into more—I pointed out that, even if hon. Members think that it was morally wrong for those women to have abortions and that it ought to be a criminal offence, I disagree, and I would not make a criminal of a woman in those circumstances.
People on this side of the argument care about unborn children. We reject the idea that we do not care about unborn babies, but we recognise that women in desperate circumstances will make the decision to have an abortion, and we will not criminalise them for it.

Mr. Leigh: I have not yet attempted to take part in the debate, because the divide between the two sides seemed to be so deep and unbridgeable that I felt that any comment I could make would add more heat than light to the argument. However, I hope to try to bridge the divide in a couple of minutes.
As the father of four children, I accept that a woman's life is precious, as is her health, and that the life, the upbringing and education of existing children are also precious.
I respect what I understand to be the motives behind the Abortion Act 1967, which was introduced by the right

hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman believes in the sanctity of the unborn human life, but he wants to balance the sanctity of that life with the many other pressures—which hon. Members who have a family recognise—that are placed upon women.
As I understand it, the 1967 Act was based on the notion of balance. The right hon. Gentleman did not introduce the Act in the spirit that abortion could become a convenient form of birth control. I am sure that that was not his intention, and I think that he said so at the time.
Some hon. Members may regret the way that the Act has been interpreted, the way that things have developed and the number of abortions which have taken place. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not introduce abortion on demand. As far as he was concerned, he was introducing a balance.
I am fearful that, if the new clause is passed tonight, the wrong signals will be sent from the House. I fear that there is a malaise in our society, and I applaud the Government's efforts to insist that fatherhood, as well as motherhood, is a lifetime commitment. We cannot walk away from the consequences of our actions. We cannot think of an unborn child as a mere object. In a real sense it is a sacred object. Therefore, with all the passion that I can muster, I urge hon. Members not to give a wrong signal, and not to pass a provision which would be seen outside the House as allowing abortion on demand. That simple, straightforward moral issue cuts through the debate and is more important than arguments about delay.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I shall delay the House for only two or three minutes to explain the purpose of new clause 5. Its general theme is the reduction of late abortions. New clause 5, in a different way from new clauses 1 and 6, is intended as a positive means of avoiding unnecessary delay for any woman seeking advice about abortion because it places a duty—as those hon. Members who have read it will realise—on the general practitioner to state in a public register that he or she has a conscientious objection to abortion. The new clause would enable a woman to ensure that she did not suffer unnecessary delay by consulting a doctor who was unwilling to help her.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said that he thought that a general practitioner would say, "I'm sorry, I am not willing to do it, but I will refer you to someone else." That would be fine if it worked, but it happens in some cases and not in others. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members have come across cases where a woman has gone from one doctor to another, and that is what we want to avoid.
In 1987, the consultant gynaecologist for Hexham told a Life conference that it was impossible—or almost impossible—to get a national health service abortion in Hexham. I wonder how late in pregnancy women in Hexham end up having abortions.
An interesting point for the House to consider is that, in February 1989, the Government published a background document called, "General Practice in the National Health Service—A New Contract". While there is much in that paper, and in the general thrust of the Government's plans for the national health service, with which Opposition Members do not agree, we all agree with the intention behind the statement:


The Government places great importance on raising consumer awareness and understanding, of what constitutes good general practice and on increasing consumer influence in developing services to meet patients' needs".
The paper goes on to say that general practitioners should publicise the services that they offer.
As that is not yet in place, we want general practitioners who are not willing to perform abortions or to refer a woman for an abortion to sign a register so that a woman knows that a particular general practitioner would not help her if she went to see him or her. That would ensure that patients have access to the necessary information about their general practitioners, and would allow patients to make an informed choice before approaching a doctor.
As I understand it, general practitioners who offer contraception do so by saying that they have a certificate from the joint committee on contraception from their area health authority. The register is just another way of doctors making a statement to say, "I am sorry, there is nothing wrong with it, but I have an objection to carrying out abortions, and it is better that you know now, rather than come to me, when I will have to tell you and refer you to someone else, and you may find that the same thing happens again."
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will consider the new clause in the light of my remarks. It is not in any way intended to hound general practitioners, but to relieve them of unnecessary visits from women they cannot help and whom they would have to tell, perhaps with some embarrassment, that they could not help.
One in five women who have abortions between 20 weeks and 23 weeks approached a doctor before the 12th week of pregnancy. Surely all hon. Members agree that no abortion should be later than necessary.
The new clause is a modest proposal, and it would in no way prevent doctors from exercising their right conscientiously to object to abortion. However, it would help women to get access to the services they need as quickly as possible. That is why we tabled the new clause.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The House is well aware that Ministers remain neutral on matters concerning abortion, which are issues for right hon. and hon. Members to exercise their conscience and use their own judgment. Traditionally, Ministers advise the House on details of administrative, medical or legal issues. I shall follow that tradition in seeking to comment on the amendments and new clauses.
Certainly Health Ministers have no particular expertise in advising other hon. Members how best they should make a moral or ethical judgment. Hon. Members will recall that, during the lengthy debate on the abortion clauses in the Bill in a Committee of the whole House, I agreed that we would come back if the House had voted for particular measures which would lead to an incoherent or inconsistent Bill. I assure the House that, having studied the results of the Committee stage, that is not the case, except for matters concerning Northern Ireland. In deciding whether to support the amendments, we believe that right hon. and hon. Members should exercise their own judgment, except that we believe that it would be right to leave existing arrangements for Northern Ireland unchanged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) tabled amendment No. 31, on

which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) spoke. The House will be aware that at present, in ordinary circumstances, a pregnancy may be terminated only if two doctors are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that an abortion is justified under one or more of the grounds specified in the Abortion Act 1967. The opinion of a single doctor is sufficient in cases where that doctor is of the opinion that abortion is immediately necessary to save the life of or to prevent grave permanent injury to the woman's health.
Amendment No. 31 enables the House to modify that position for pregnancies of 12 weeks or under. My hon. Friend referred to it as a limited, modest and useful measure. Some hon. Members may take that view, but during the debate it has become clear that my hon.. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) do not regard it in that light.
New clause 1 appears to be intended to allow a woman the right to have an abortion on request up to the 12th week of gestation, regardless of the grounds specified in the 1967 Act, if one registered medical practitioner certifies that the pregnancy has not exceeded that period. New clause 6 and amendment No. 31 do not go as far as new clause 1. They relax the two-doctor requirement and allow the termination of a pregnancy with the consent of one doctor, provided that the requirements of the Act are met and the doctor is of the opinion that the pregnancy has not exceeded 12 weeks. I am advised that, of the two proposals, amendment No. 31 is technically superior to new clause 6 and would achieve its purpose without further amendments to the Act being required.
In considering the new clauses and amendment No. 31, the House has agreed that, when an abortion is carried out —every case is clearly an individual tragedy—it is much better that it takes place early. Although 84 per cent. of abortions were carried out before 12 weeks' gestation in 1988, and in 1989 that figure had increased to 86 per cent., in 1988 some 30,000 abortions took place after the 12th week of pregnancy.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the hon. Member for Peckham mentioned the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists report which showed that 20 per cent. of abortions done between 20 and 23 weeks' gestation had been referred to a doctor earlier and had then been referred for a second opinion.
Delay can occur at various stages in considering a woman's request for an abortion, and the need to obtain the consent of two doctors can be a contributory factor. Many hon. Members have spelt out the importance of trying to ensure that, when an abortion needs to be carried out, it should happen swiftly and without undue delay. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale also made the useful point that a greater public consciousness of the need to take necessary steps before 12 weeks should be encouraged. I can also pass on the medical advice that those terminations that take place after 12 weeks are much more likely to lead to complications, quite apart from the additional stress to the woman.
I shall briefly comment on new clause 5, to which the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) referred.


Again the Government remain formally neutral, although it is important to make it clear that we would anticipate a number of difficulties should such a clause gain support.
Hon. Members will know that section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967 already provides that, except where treatment is necessary to save the life of or prevent grave permanent injury to the pregnant woman,
no person shall he under any duty whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection".
If medical or nursing staff have strong ethical or moral objections to abortion work, they should not be obliged to take it on. Their conscientious objections should not be detrimental to their careers and appointments.
New clause 5 seeks to introduce a statutory notification system. Apart from a number of technical faults, with which I shall not trouble the hon. Lady, it would require very demanding administrative arrangements. Perhaps more important are the implications of making public people's views on a matter on which there are such strongly held feelings. In addition, we have received correspondence from the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, expressing grave reservations about the implications of such a system. As the hon. Lady said, although the new clause refers to medical practitioners and not to nurses, it is important to make it clear that they anticipate difficulties with such a system. Similarly, the Royal College of Midwives has informed us that it might well lead to considerable difficulties of recruitment and retention.
Conscientious objection has been considered by the Social Services Select Committee. There are strong views and, of course, the Government will consider the Select Committee report carefully.
I turn now to a subject which has been the source of considerable concern to many hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke forcefully and was supported by his hon. Friends. The 1967 Act, which legalised abortion under certain circumstances, does not extend to Northern Ireland. The provisions of that Act were not originally introduced in Northern Ireland because the Government considered that the reform of social law in the Province was a matter for the Northern Ireland Government. It has been the policy of successive Governments throughout direct rule that Northern Ireland's unique position makes it desirable to re-establish a devolved Administration there.
The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 provides for a Northern Ireland Assembly to determine its own policy and pass its own legislation on certain matters. The amendment falls clearly within that legislation. Parliament may of course legislate in such matters, but we have always been at pains to tailor such legislation to the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, especially in social legislation, where the values of the people of Northern Ireland may differ from those of people living in England, Wales and Scotland.
To the best of my knowledge, no Northern Ireland Member of Parliament has ever called for changes in the Northern Ireland abortion laws. Similarly, all the soundings of opinion have made it very clear that there is no will in Northern Ireland for such a change. I am

informed that my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have received more than 2,000 letters on the subject, urging them robustly to resist such a new clause. I strongly urge the House to reject new clause 7, which would be offensive to the overwhelming majority of people in the Province.
I urge the House to support Government amendment No. 54, which is a tidying amendment. There is a contradiction within clause 34, and amendment No. 54 simply excludes clause 34 as it applies to Northern Ireland.
Many hon. Members are seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who all have strongly held and sincere views on these difficult and sensitive matters. I have sought to confine my remarks to the medical, administrative and legal issues that affect these concerns.
My having made the point about not altering the position on Northern Ireland, it is for hon. Members to weigh up the merits of the new clauses and amendments and to exercise their judgment on behalf of their constituents.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I oppose new clause 5. The Minister inaccurately referred to midwives being affected by it. It does not refer to midwives, and the Royal College of Midwives Trusts was inaccurate in the brief that it circulated to hon. Members.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) not to press new clause 5, to which many hon. Members are deeply hostile, and I shall explain why. An organisation called the Economic League registers people who take a principled position in conscience on political issues. My hon. Friend said that the new clause is supported by "we on this side", whereas it is supported by some Labour Members but not by me. The new clause sets up a register exactly the same as that organised by the Economic League. Instead of people being registered for their political conscience, they would be listed because of their opinion on abortion. That is quite unacceptable and is against all the traditions of the Labour party, which for decades has prided itself on the libertarian position that it generally takes on all issues.
We are deeply hostile to the new clause. It will lead to the targeting of doctors by minority groups, who will not want certain doctors to be allowed to practise in certain hospitals. Furthermore, it will lead to the emigration of many doctors who will feel, having been placed on the register, that no one will be willing to give them an appointment or interview anywhere in the United Kingdom.
I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—I ask them to listen to what I am saying—please do not press the new clause. It is appalling, it is immoral and it is wrong.

Dame Jill Knight: I rise briefly to support the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I can never recall a public register being drawn up to pillory people who hold certain opinions.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Economic League.

Dame Jill Knight: As far as I am aware, the Economic League does not produce a register that is available to the public. The new clause says that the public register should be available for anyone to read.
6.45 pm
Hon. Members have a right to whatever opinion they hold. There are sinister groups, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and I have good reason to know, who physically attack those who oppose abortion. I have been the victim of an attack and my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point has also been attacked. If the new clause is passed, those vicious people will be able to obtain a list of doctors who have a professional job to do but have a right to their own opinion on how they do their job. Doctors who do not agree with abortion will be targeted mercilessly. It is not only a question of them not being able to get a job in a practice or a hospital because, without question, they would be targeted in a most vicious, wicked and un-British way. The House cannot allow this sinister new clause to be passed.

Dr. Moonie: In the few minutes that I have, I shall give my reasons for supporting several of the new clauses and amendments.
I support new clause I for the simple reason that a balance should be struck in the law between the rights of women and the potential rights of the unborn foetus. The later parts of the Bill provides a reasonable balance between those rights. They recognise that as the pregnancy proceeds the rights of the foetus become paramount. They do not recognise that the rights of the woman should be paramount early on. It is a matter of civil liberties as much as medical reason, and I believe profoundly that a woman should have the right, up to 12 weeks into her pregnancy, to decide whether she wishes to proceed with it.
New clause 6 and amendment No. 31 are almost identical. They provide for a single signature rather than the two signatures that are necessary at present. An argument that has not been advanced thus far should be recognised. When the Abortion Act was passed in 1967, there were disparities in the training of medical practitioners, general practitioners and consultant practitioners in hospitals. That was recognised by the fact that two signatures were required—that of the GP for the initial referral and that of the consultant to signify that he agreed. Medical practice has moved on since that Act was passed and general practitioners are given full and rigorous training before being allowed to take up their position. They are adequately trained and informed to make that judgment without it being subjected to that of a second party. If new clause 1 is not passed, new clause 6 or amendment No. 31 would recognise that fact.
I support new clause 5, and I gave it considerable thought before adding my name to it. The NHS is an expensive resource and it is paid for from my taxes and those of others. People are entitled to receive a full service, but they are also entitled to know who will not provide it so that they may find out who will.
The rights of women have not been mentioned by Conservative Members, but they never are; all they talk about are the rights of unborn children. They do not care about the rights of women, and I certainly will not listen to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who gave us her bigoted views, having attended for only five minutes while other hon. Members who had been present longer waited to speak.
I support new clause 7, which deals with the rights of women in Northern Ireland. Women in Northern Ireland who wish to have an abortion should have the same rights as other women in the United Kingdom.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I shall speak to new clauses 1 and 6 and amendment No. 31. I am grateful to the Minister for her comments on the conscience clause and the difficulties that it will cause. I am also grateful for her comments on Northern Ireland.
I bear in mind three points in my opposition to new clauses 1 and 6 and amendment No. 31. If we passed new clause 1, we should be saying that for the first trimester of pregnancy there would no longer be any reason to produce medical grounds for abortion. Whatever may be the failings of the Abortion Act 1967, at least it requires good reasons to be given for abortion. It provides some, albeit paltry, recognition of the fact that the unborn child is special and that abortion is special and cannot be equated with a simple operation, such as having a tooth Out. If we remove the medical grounds, we remove that minimum recognition of the difference between such operations.
I am also concerned about those women who have been neglected in the arguments advanced by the Opposition. I refer to those who receive inadequate counselling and who consequently suffer from post-abortion syndrome. If the signature of only one doctor is needed and abortion becomes immediately and readily available, those women will be less likely to receive good counselling and to be given sufficient time to consider what they are doing.
The argument that has been deployed by the Opposition today is bogus. They argue that if we make early abortion easier, we shall reduce the number of late abortions. I refer not to a pro-life document but to a study published by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—no friend, in recent years, of the pro-life movement. When the RCOG investigated the causes of late abortion it found that
in 30 per cent. of second trimester abortions"—
that is the period immediately following the 12 weeks—
the major cause of the abortion was not that it had been earlier requested and that there were NHS delays but that in fact there was, very simply, a failure in those early stages to recognise pregnancy. Of the further 50 per cent.
that takes us up to 80 per cent.
personal factors were the major cause.
They include prolonged indecision, apprehension and, above all, changes in relationships and changes in circumstances.
The report also referred to the large number of foreign women entering the country and inflating the late abortion figures. Perhaps—most sinister of all—the major reason for delay, according to the RCOG, between the 15th and 19th week was the wait for a prostaglandin abortion because the unborn baby must be of a particular size for prostaglandins to be effective. Does that mean that a child should be allowed to grow until it is ready to be aborted? The figures show that the major reason for late abortions is not NHS delays.
As for the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), for whom I have great respect and with whom I work on many issues, he said that where there is abortion on demand or request up to 12 weeks, a larger number of abortions are performed during those 12 weeks, but he failed to examine the effect on those percentages of the regulations that govern abortions after the 12th week. The tougher the regulations that govern


abortions after the 12th week, the more abortions are carried out during the first 12 weeks. The figures for the Netherlands and Britain are close, compared with France, because it is still so easy after the 12th week to obtain abortions in both countries. It is not true that if we make abortion easier in the first trimester we shall reduce late abortions. That is not the governing principle.
We have been told that an overwhelming majority of people believe in abortion on demand in the early stages of pregnancy. A recent Gallup survey—many hon. Members invoke Gallup surveys, so I hope that we shall not hear that there is anything wrong with this one—asked a representative sample of the population a simple question:
Do you think that abortion should be made available on demand in some circumstances, or never?
Only 24 per cent. of those who were asked that question said that abortion should be available on demand. There is no majority for it.
We fly in the face of public opinion. I urge hon. Members not to be misled by claims that easy early abortions mean fewer late abortions. It does not. Many other factors govern late abortions. We must not further devalue the life of the unborn child, the need for proper counselling and the recognition, paltry though it is in the Act, of the fact that the decision to have an abortion is serious.

Mr. Frank Field: This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in a debate on abortion. I do so in consequence of a recent important decision by the House. It has changed my stance. I am not vain enough to think that the House may be interested in the reasons for my change of stance, but I represent a constituency in which the religious groupings make it necessary for me to spell out why I shall vote in a different Lobby tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) captured yesterday what was rightly called the high moral ground when he referred to the rights of the unborn child. The debate can be polarised in that way. However, we should examine our moral actions from a different standpoint. Sometimes it helps to stand back from the issue that we are discussing and consider another one on which people, faced with a difficult issue, had to come to a moral decision.
Bishop Bell of Chichester adopted the absolutist stance that to bomb Germany was wrong, and he deployed his argument powerfully. In a sense, a similar argument has been deployed tonight. At that time, the pilots, and the men and women who had to service the aircraft, had to take a moral decision. According to the records, we now know that many of those people were immensely troubled. They did not regard it in absolutist terms but as a choice between two evils: letting the Nazis win or taking part in an activity that they did not like. They carried out their duty.
The Minister for Health said that there is an element of tragedy in every abortion. That starting point unites the whole House. On earlier occasions we have debated means by which the number of tragedies can be reduced. Some people believe that we should make it more difficult for women to have abortions. It is clear from the way that the House speaks and votes that that is not an option.
In the messy area of not being absolutist but of having to choose between alternatives, I believe it to be right to go

for earlier rather than for late abortion. We should make it harder for late abortions to take place, but that option is not before the House tonight.
We must link family planning to the debate about abortion. We all know in our hearts that if we had a fraction of the campaign and the lobbying force that has rightly supported the issue of abortion behind the issue of family planning, things would be very different. If we could move on the family planning front as well, the tragedies to which the Minister for Health referred—tragedies which unite the House—could be reduced. The number of women coming forward for abortions could be significantly reduced.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [2 April] and the Resolution [20 June], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 264.

Division No. 250]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foster, Derek


Adley, Robert
Foulkes, George


Allen, Graham
Fraser, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fyfe, Maria


Armstrong, Hilary
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gill, Christopher


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Barron, Kevin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beckett, Margaret
Gould, Bryan


Blunkett, David
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Boateng, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boyes, Roland
Haselhurst, Alan


Bradley, Keith
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hood, Jimmy


Buck, Sir Antony
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Caborn, Richard
Howells, Geraint


Callaghan, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hoyle, Doug


Carr, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clay, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Clelland, David
Ingram, Adam


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Coleman, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Colvin, Michael
Lambie, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cousins, Jim
Leighton, Ron


Cox, Tom
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Darling, Alistair
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Loyden, Eddie


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Doran, Frank
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William


Eastham, Ken
McLeish, Henry


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Madden, Max


Fatchett, Derek
Mahon. Mrs Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marek, Dr John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Marland, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Flannery, Martin
Maxton, John


Flynn, Paul
Meacher, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Forth, Eric
Miscampbell, Norman






Mitchell, Sir David
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Squire, Robin


Morgan, Rhodri
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


Mowlam, Marjorie
Straw, Jack


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Nellist, Dave
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


O'Brien, William
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tredinnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Primarolo, Dawn
Walley, Joan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Radice, Giles
Wareing, Robert N.


Rhodes James, Robert
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Richardson, Jo
Wells, Bowen


Robinson, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rogers, Allan
Wigley, Dafydd


Rooker, Jeff
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Short, Clare



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Miss Kate Hoey and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)



Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Allason, Rupert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Alton, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amos, Alan
Cope, Rt Hon John


Arbuthnot, James
Cormack, Patrick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Critchley, Julian


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cummings, John


Ashby, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Devlin, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Dewar, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas, Dick


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dover, Den


Benyon, W.
Dunn, Bob


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Durant, Tony


Body, Sir Richard
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fallon, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Favell, Tony


Bottomley, Peter
Fearn, Ronald


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Franks, Cecil


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Buckley, George J.
Galloway, George


Budgen, Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burns, Simon
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Burt, Alistair
Gow, Ian


Butler, Chris
Green way, Harry (Ealing N)


Butterfill, John
Gregory, Conal


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Ground, Patrick


Carrington, Matthew
Grylls, Michael


Cash, William
Hague, William


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Jeremy





Hannam, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hardy, Peter
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Harris, David
Murphy, Paul


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neubert, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Norris, Steve


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hill, James
O'Brien, William


Hind, Kenneth
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hordern, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parry, Robert


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hume, John
Pendry, Tom


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pike, Peter L.


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irvine, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Irving, Sir Charles
Price, Sir David


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Janman, Tim
Redmond, Martin


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kennedy, Charles
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Kilfedder, James
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowlands, Ted


Kirkwood, Archy
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knowles, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Latham, Michael
Sillars, Jim


Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lewis, Terry
Speed, Keith


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stevens, Lewis


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


McCrea, Rev William
Stokes, Sir John


McCrindle, Robert
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Sumberg, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Summerson, Hugo


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mallon, Seamus
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thornton, Malcolm


Marlow, Tony
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Trimble, David


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mates, Michael
Walden, George


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wallace, James


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Ward, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moate, Roger
Watts, John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Whitney, Ray






Widdecombe, Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wilkinson, John



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wood, Timothy
Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.


Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I will now ask the Secretary of State to say which amendments he intends to move so that a Division can be called on them in this group.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, votes can be taken at this stage only on the motion of the Minister, in line with the timetable motion, and I intend to follow the practice that I explained yesterday of moving for a vote the amendments on which the hon. Members who tabled them have told me that they would like a vote. They are amendment No. 31 and new clause 5, both of which are subject to a free vote for Conservative Members, and amendment No. 54, on which we shall urge Conservative Members to vote in favour.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments and new clauses, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

Clause 34

AMENDMENT OF LAW RELATING TO TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY

Amendment proposed: No. 31, in page 19, line 41, at end
insert—
'(1A) After section 1(1) of that Act there is inserted—
(1A) The opinion of one medical practitioner is sufficient for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section if he is also of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twelfth week.":—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 228.

Division No. 251]
[7.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Callaghan, Jim


Adley, Robert
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Allason, Rupert
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Allen, Graham
Carr, Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cartwright, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Ashton, Joe
Clay, Bob


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Coleman, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Colvin, Michael


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blair, Tony
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Blunkett, David
Cousins, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Cox, Tom


Boswell, Tim
Cryer, Bob


Bottomley, Peter
Darling, Alistair


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Boyes, Roland
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bradley, Keith
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Doran, Frank


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Farr, Sir John


Buck, Sir Antony
Fatchett, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)





Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Miscampbell, Norman


Fisher, Mark
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Sir David


Flynn, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morgan, Rhodri


Forman, Nigel
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Forth, Eric
Morrison, Sir Charles


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foulkes, George
Mullin, Chris


Fraser, John
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Maria
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gardiner, George
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gill, Christopher
Patchett, Terry


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Patnick, Irvine


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Pike, Peter L.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Goodlad, Alastair
Price, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Primarolo, Dawn


Grocott, Bruce
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Radice, Giles


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rathbone, Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
Rhodes James, Robert


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Rogers, Allan


Hinchliffe, David
Rooker, Jeff


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ryder, Richard


Hood, Jimmy
Sedgemore, Brian


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Short, Clare


Howells, Geraint
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Illsley, Eric
Soley, Clive


Ingram, Adam
Squire, Robin


Janner, Greville
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Steinberg, Gerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Strang, Gavin


Key, Robert
Straw, Jack


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lambie, David
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Leadbitter, Ted
Thurnham, Peter


Leighton, Ron
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Tredinnick, David


Lewis, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Livingstone, Ken
Wallace, James


Livsey, Richard
Walley, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ward, John


Loyden, Eddie
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wareing, Robert N.


McAllion, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McKelvey, William
Wigley, Dafydd


McLeish, Henry
Wilkinson, John


Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mahon. Mrs Alice
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Marek, Dr John
Wilshire, David


Marland, Paul
Winnick, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Maxton, John



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Ms. Kate Hoey and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.


Michie. Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alton, David
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Amess, David
Ashby, David


Amos, Alan
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony






Batiste, Spencer
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr'


Beggs, Roy
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Beith, A. J.
Harris, David


Bell, Stuart
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bellingham, Henry
Hayward, Robert


Bendall, Vivian
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Benyon, W.
Hill, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hind, Kenneth


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bowis, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hume, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brazier, Julian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Bright, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Irvine, Michael


Buckley, George J.
Irving, Sir Charles


Budgen, Nicholas
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
Janman, Tim


Burt, Alistair
Jessel, Toby


Butler, Chris
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Butterfill, John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kennedy, Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Kilfedder, James


Cash, William
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Knapman, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Chapman, Sydney
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lang, Ian


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Latham, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lawrence, Ivan


Cormack, Patrick
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Critchley, Julian
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cummings, John
Lightbown, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lord, Michael


Day, Stephen
McCrea, Rev William


Devlin, Tim
McCrindle, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Dixon, Don
Maclennan, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas, Dick
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNamara, Kevin


Dover, Den
Malins, Humfrey


Dunn, Bob
Mallon, Seamus


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mans, Keith


Durant, Tony
Marlow, Tony


Evennett, David
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fallon, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Favell, Tony
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fearn, Ronald
Mates, Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fox, Sir Marcus
Moate, Roger


Franks, Cecil
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Freeman, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


French, Douglas
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gale, Roger
Moss, Malcolm


Galloway, George
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Murphy, Paul


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Neubert, Michael


Gow, Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Norris, Steve


Gregory, Conal
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
O'Brien, William


Ground, Patrick
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Grylls, Michael
Paice, James


Hague, William
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Parry, Robert


Hanley, Jeremy
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hannam, John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hardy, Peter
Pawsey, James





Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Pendry, Tom
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Stokes, Sir John


Powell, William (Corby)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Sumberg, David


Redwood, John
Summerson, Hugo


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thornton, Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Trimble, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Shelton, Sir William
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Sillars, Jim
Whitney, Ray


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Speed, Keith
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.


Stevens, Lewis

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS

'The Abortion Act 1967 shall be amended as follows:—After section 4 insert—
4A—(1) Any registered medical practitioner who has a conscientious objection to participating in any treatment authorised by this Act who relies upon or intends to rely upon a provision of section 4 above shall be under a duty to notify either—
(a) The Chief Medical Officer of the DHSS, or if they work in Scotland,
(b) The Scottish Home and Health Department.
(2) The Secretary of State shall by Statutory Instrument make regulations to provide—
(a) for requiring any such notification as mentioned in subsection (1) above to be in such form and at such time as may be prescribed by the regulations; and
(b) for the keeping and maintaining of a register of the names of all those persons who have given notification and such register shall be open to public inspection.
(3) Any Statutory Instrument made by virtue of this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Dr. Moonie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 228.

Division No. 252]
[7.24 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Allen, Graham
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Caborn, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Barron, Kevin
Cartwright, John


Beckett, Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Boateng, Paul
Clay, Bob


Bradley, Keith
Clelland, David






Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Marland, Paul


Cohen, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Coleman, Donald
Maxton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Meale, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cox, Tom
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cryer, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Morrison, Sir Charles


Eastham, Ken
Mullin, Chris


Fatchett, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
O'Neill, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Patchett, Terry


Flannery, Martin
Pike, Peter L.


Flynn, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Primarolo, Dawn


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fraser, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Fyfe, Maria
Richardson, Jo


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Robinson, Geoffrey


George, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Gill, Christopher
Sedgemore, Brian


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Goodlad, Alastair
Short, Clare


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Haynes, Frank
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Soley, Clive


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Squire, Robin


Hinchliffe, David
Steinberg, Gerry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Straw, Jack


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hoyle, Doug
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Turner, Dennis


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Walley, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wareing, Robert N.


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Knowles, Michael
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Leadbitter, Ted
Wigley, Dafydd


Leighton, Ron
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Lewis, Terry
Winnick, David


Livingstone, Ken
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Loyden, Eddie



McLeish, Henry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mahon. Mrs Alice
Mr. Frank Doran and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.


Marek, Dr John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Allason, Rupert
Bowis, John


Alton, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Amess, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amos, Alan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Ashby, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Buckley, George J.


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Burns, Simon


Baldry, Tony
Burt, Alistair


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Butler, Chris


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Beggs, Roy
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beith, A. J.
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bendall, Vivian
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Benyon, W.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carr, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carrington, Matthew


Blunkett, David
Cash, William


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Boswell, Tim
Chapman, Sydney


Bottomley, Peter
Churchill, Mr





Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunter, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Conway, Derek
Irving, Sir Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Janman, Tim


Cormack, Patrick
Janner, Greville


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cummings, John
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Kennedy, Charles


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Dixon, Don
Kilfedder, James


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Douglas, Dick
Kirkwood, Archy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lambie, David


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Litherland, Robert


Favell, Tony
Livsey, Richard


Fearn, Ronald
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCrea, Rev William


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fox, Sir Marcus
McKelvey, William


Franks, Cecil
Maclennan, Robert


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
McNamara, Kevin


Galloway, George
Malins, Humfrey


Gardiner, George
Mallon, Seamus


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mans, Keith


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marlow, Tony


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gow, Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Gregory, Conal
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ground, Patrick
Miscampbell, Norman


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hanley, Jeremy
Monro, Sir Hector


Hannam, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayward, Robert
Murphy, Paul


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hill, James
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hind, Kenneth
O'Brien, William


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hordern, Sir Peter
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Parry, Robert


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howells, Geraint
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pendry, Tom


Hume, John
Porter, David (Waveney)






Powell, William (Corby)
Strang, Gavin


Price, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Summerson, Hugo


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Redwood, John
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rooker, Jeff
Thornton, Malcolm


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Tracey, Richard


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tredinnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Trimble, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ryder, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wallace, James


Shelton, Sir William
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Sillars, Jim
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilkinson, John


Speed, Keith
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Stanbrook, Ivor
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Worthington, Tony


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis



Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stokes, Sir John
Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.


Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 43

NORTHERN IRELAND.

Amendment proposed: No. 54, in page 24, line 39, after
`Act', insert `(except section 34)'.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 131.

Division No. 253]
[7.37 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bright, Graham


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Allason, Rupert
Brown, Michael (Brigg S Cl't's)


Alton, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Amess, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butler, Chris


Ashby, David
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Batiste, Spencer
Canavan, Dennis


Beggs, Roy
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Beith, A. J.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Carrington, Matthew


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cash, William


Benyon, W.
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chapman, Sydney


Blunkett, David
Churchill, Mr


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boswell, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bowis, John
Cormack, Patrick


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Couchman, James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Critchley, Julian


Brazier, Julian
Cummings, John





Cunliffe, Lawrence
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Lang, Ian


Dover, Den
Latham, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Durant, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Fallon, Michael
Lord, Michael


Favell, Tony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fearn, Ronald
McCrea, Rev William


Fishburn, John Dudley
McCrindle, Robert


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forth, Eric
Maclennan, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
McLoughlin, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Freeman, Roger
McNamara, Kevin


French, Douglas
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Mallon, Seamus


Gardiner, George
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maples, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marlow, Tony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mates, Michael


Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Sir David


Ground, Patrick
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hanley, Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, John
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hardy, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Norris, Steve


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hayward, Robert
O'Brien, William


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Paice, James


Hill, James
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hind, Kenneth
Parry, Robert


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patchett, Terry


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pawsey, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hume, John
Price, Sir David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Irving, Sir Charles
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Janman, Tim
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Rowe, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Kennedy, Charles
Ryder, Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, David (Dover)






Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shelton, Sir William
Tracey, Richard


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Trimble, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trotter, Neville


Sillars, Jim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wallace, James


Speed, Keith
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Stevens, Lewis
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stokes, Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Sumberg, David
Wilshire, David


Summerson, Hugo
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Thornton, Malcolm





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Allen, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Harman, Ms Harriet


Armstrong, Hilary
Haynes, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hood, Jimmy


Barron, Kevin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Beckett, Margaret
Howells, Geraint


Blair, Tony
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Boateng, Paul
Hoyle, Doug


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Illsley, Eric


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lambie, David


Caborn, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Jim
Leighton, Ron


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Litherland, Robert


Carr, Michael
Livingstone, Ken


Cartwright, John
Livsey, Richard


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clay, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Clelland, David
McAllion, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
McLeish, Henry


Coleman, Donald
Madden, Max


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mahon. Mrs Alice


Cousins, Jim
Marek, Dr John


Cox, Tom
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cryer, Bob
Maxton, John


Darling, Alistair
Meale, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morgan, Rhodri


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Doran, Frank
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eastham, Ken
Mullin, Chris


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Nellist, Dave


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fisher, Mark
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fraser, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Fyfe, Maria
Quin, Ms Joyce


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Radice, Giles


George, Bruce
Richardson, Jo





Robinson, Geoffrey
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rooker, Jeff
Tredinnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walley, Joan


Short, Clare
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N.


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Wigley, Dafydd


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Squire, Robin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry



Strang, Gavin
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Miss Kate Hoey and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 34

AMENDMENT OF LAW RELATING TO TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY

Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 20, line 4, at end insert
'provided that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week or, if the pregnancy is being terminated in accordance with section 1(1)(d) of this Act (termination because of the risk that the child will be handicapped), its twenty-eighth week'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It will be convenient to take at the same time the following amendments: No. 30, in page 20, line 4, at end insert—
'(4) In section 5(2) of that Act, for the words from "the miscarriage" to the end there is substituted "a woman's miscarriage (or, in the case of a woman carrying more than one foetus, her miscarriage of any foetus) is unlawfully done unless authorised by section 1 of this Act and, in the case of a woman carrying more than one foetus, anything done with intent to procure her miscarriage of any foetus is authorised by that section if—
(a) the ground for termination of the pregnancy specified in subsection (1)(d) of that section applies in relation to any foetus and the thing is done for the purpose of procuring the miscarriage of that foetus, or
(b) any of the other grounds for termination of the pregnancy specified in that section applies".'.

No. 29, in page 19, line 42, at end insert—
'(2A) After section 1(3) of that Act there is inserted—
(3A) The power under subsection (3) of this section to approve a place includes power, in relation to treatment consisting primarily in the use of such medicines as may be specified in the approval and carried out in such manner as may be so specified, to approve a class of places".'.

No. 28, in page 19, line 42, at end insert—
'(2A) After section 2(1) of that Act (notification), there is inserted—
(1A) Regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section—
(a) may require a certificate to include such further particulars relating to any opinion certified as the regulations may prescribe,
(b) shall require any certified opinion falling within section 1(1)(d) of this Act to include an opinion as to the nature of the physical or mental abnormalities from which there is a substantial risk that the child would suffer if it were born, and
(c) shall require the practitioners or practitioner concerned to send a copy of any such certified opinion as is referred to in paragraph (b), and of any


such further particulars relating to that opinion, solely to the person to whom they are required by regulations to give notice of the termination,
and for the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section such a copy is information furnished pursuant to the regulations.".'.

Mr. Alison: It will probably assist the House most if I begin with a factual background explanation of what the amendment would secure, and then argue its merits. In an important vote on 24 April of this year, when we last debated these matters on the Floor of the House, we determined by a substantial majority that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, with its well known 28-week benchmark for foetal viability, should no longer be the overall ringmaster, so to speak, in the arena of abortion. It was the crack of that ringmaster's whip, to continue the analogy, which in practice determined the operational impact of the Abortion Act 1967, because the 1967 Act incorporated no specific time limits of its own.
But in disapplying the 1929 Act in its bearing on the 1967 Act, as we did in April, and in shaking off that yoke, the instinct and purpose of hon. Members and, I argue, of the Government was not to declare a time vacuum between a human conception and a human birth nine months later. It was rather to declare that the 1967 Act had come of age and could feature specific time limits in its own right and in accordance with more modern conditions.
Our purpose was manifestly not to sweep away all benchmarks but to choose between alternative benchmarks. If our original intent had been to sweep away all benchmarks, we need not have troubled ourselves with long lists of optional alternative time periods for foetal viability, ranging from 18 to 28 weeks. We could simply have had an amendment to repeal the 1929 Act.
There was no such catch-all amendment before hon. Members on 24 April last. But there was before us—properly, logically and responsibly—a proposed Government new clause in which every relevant major category of abortion had an up-to-date and specific time limit attached to it—24 weeks for the general risk of injury category, 24 weeks for the new grave permanent injury category and 28 weeks for the risk of foetal handicap category. Only the category of pregnancy where the continuance would involve risk to the life of the woman did the Government leave fully open-ended in their original new clause on 24 April.
I will not weary the House with a rehearsal of how, probably partly unintentionally, we ended up by declaring a time vacuum for important categories of abortion, enfranchising them, so to speak, across the whole nine-month gestation period up to birth.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: My right hon. Friend suggests that hon. Members voted unitentionally in that way. Surely we were just following the recommendations of the Brightman committee. Has my right hon. Friend read the conclusions of the House of Lords Select Committee, which recommended not only that the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill [Lords] should not proceed, but that there should be no upper limit in cases of foetal abnormality? The Bishop of Gloucester, a member of that Select Committee, voted for that recommendation.

Mr. Alison: I chose the word "unintentionally" deliberately, because a number of hon. Members who voted to eliminate the 28-week limit as applied to foetal abnormality were under the impression, falsely, that its

elimination would not produce an open-ended and undated situation but would result in a fall-back fail-safe application of the 24-week limit, which the Government had written into other categories of abortion. I repeat, from the point of view of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, that whatever others may be arguing or advocating, there was no substantive amendment before hon. Members on 24 April to repeal that Act.

Miss Widdecombe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the representations that we have received from hon. Members who were confused on that occasion do not come exclusively from what might be termed the pro-life side but come from all sides of the argument, including hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and that the confusion that reigned that night must be put right if we are to know the will of the House?

Mr. Alison: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact remains that that open-ended enfranchisement of a whole range of categories of abortion for the total nine-month gestation period appears now on the face of the Bill.
As at present amended, the four grounds for abortion spelt out by the Government in the original version of clause 34, with time limits specified, now feature no fewer than three which discard all time limits and allow abortion up to birth. That is about as sweeping and fundamental a reversal of the existing law as one could imagine, for the existing law allows for the destruction of a viable foetus up to birth in only one case, and that is the single dreadful contingency that one life, either that of the mother or the infant, must be forfeit. That open-ended commitment in that unique case we have extended in the way I have described.
It is because I believe that the majority of hon. Members are not content with that sweeping liberalisation —with the new open-endedness—that my amendment has been tabled, precisely to re-establish some final points.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have before me the diagram which was produced by the Leader of the House on the last occasion we discussed the issue and which, in my recollection, was used by the vast majority of hon. Members as a guide to their voting intention. It clearly sets out—in the case of the two categories where my hon. Friend's amendment challenges the no limit—that in respect of grave permanent injury to the health of the woman, two amendments were tabled, one of which would have brought in no limit and one of which would have brought in 28 weeks. Hon. Members cast a vote in favour of no limit, and I was on the losing side. It also makes clear, in the case of substantial risk of serious handicap, the choice between no limit, 28 weeks and 24 weeks. Again, hon. Members voted for no limit.
I understand my right hon. Friend's views and, as his amendment has been selected, he is reopening the question. But is he sure that he is doing the House a service by suggesting that, in the middle of the night on the last occasion, when hon. Members were armed with three documents—there were unofficial ones also—which were guides to what they were voting on, they did not actually know the way in which they were voting? That is not my recollection of the evening.

Mr. Alison: My right hon. and learned Friend must bear two points in mind, and I am grateful to him for


throwing further light on this complex area. The first is that the Leader of the House's famous diagram darkened counsel for a large number of hon. Members. It was erroneous in substantial and important respects.
For example, paragraph 7 of the document said:
The effect of the ILPA is to produce a 28-week limit where the abortion is to prevent grave permanent injury to the pregnant woman's health. The new clause replicates this, providing 28 weeks instead of 24 weeks.
Where did the new clause replicate that? It did not do so on the face of the amendment as tabled by the Government. That statement was misleading and erroneous. There were others, in the junior Minister's speech, in which she misquoted letters applicable to amendments that appeared on the Order Paper, and in the guidance offered by the Leader of the House.
I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend that not only was counsel darkened by some of the advice received from the most responsible sources but when, against the wish and advice of the Secretary of State—in the case of the 28-week change—the House took a particular decision, it is not unlikely that the resulting liberalisation might have induced hon. Members to think that they should reconsider the whole gamut of amendments that ultimately resulted from the decisions that we took that night.

8 pm

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that that evening of voting was the most confusing that most of us have experienced in our parliamentary careers; and will he further agree that it tended to bring Parliament into disrepute because hon. Members were going around with three sets of papers and were totally confused? My right hon. Friend is doing the House a great service by bringing the issue back this evening.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to lose the sympathy and support—I am bound to desire and require it—of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, but I trust that he will allow me my attempted defence of the inescapable human fallibilities of the highest civil service sections and sources in these difficult matters.
The effect of the amendment will be that the 24-week limit already provided for by my right hon. and learned Friend in clause 34(1)(a), in the single case of the general risk of injury category, will be extended to the grave permanent injury category of subsection (1)(b) and to the risk to life category of subsection (1)(c). Uniquely, the general 24-week limit will be raised to 28 weeks by our amendment in the case of the fourth and last category in the clause—that of possible foetal handicap.
The House will note that there is nothing innovative or radical about these new time limits. They do not tighten up on what the Government first brought forward; rather, they echo the original 24 April draft of the Government new clause, in which, as the House will recall, 24 weeks was proposed for the new grave permanent injury category and 28 weeks for potential foetal handicap.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his amendment will still leave open-ended an abortion in the case of risk to the mother's life?

Mr. Alison: I come immediately to that point. The only category that was originally open-ended in the Government's 24 April draft but to which we have attached, as to the others, the 24-week limit is that of balance of risk to the woman's life—subsection (1)(c). In the amendment, that is merely a precautionary, not an absolute, provision, because, as we know, any abortion performed in good faith for the sole purpose of saving the pregnant woman's life is not subject to any time limit under section 1(1) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. That Act will thus continue to operate as a fail-safe mechanism in any abortion over 24 weeks.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) may wonder why we bothered to include that limit, given that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act can override it. The reason is that there are doctors today who argue that an abortion at 12 weeks is so safe that it is actually a good deal safer than any pregnancy brought to term, so it could be argued that one was more likely to save the life of a woman if her pregnancy were never allowed to come to term and were always aborted as early as possible —that is the logical consequence of the argument: to end all human births. So we have introduced this precautionary, 24-week limit, safeguarded by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
We should not deceive ourselves or mince words. To abort means to do away with, deliberately, finally and irrevocably—the word can mean nothing else. That is different from a miscarriage of a very early foetus. In that case, what nature has given, nature has taken away. It is also different from an induced or premature termination or evacuation of a more developed or viable foetus. In that case, when nature has apparently fumbled, human hands can seek to rescue. Incidentally, a termination or evacuation after viability is an induced birth. It is only an abortion if the child is deliberately killed.
My amendment, reintroducing the 24 and 28-week limits, would not affect terminations on medical grounds —for example, under clause 34(1)(b) or (c)—provided that there was an intention to save the child if possible and not to destroy it.
The stark and dreadful import of abortion is that what nature has successfully—in spite of all hazards—launched into the orbit of life, human hands seek deliberately to arrest and destroy in mid-trajectory. To make such a terrible intervention in the course of nature demands compellingly good reasons. The further the foetus has got off the ground, so to speak, the more vital it is that human intervention should be geared to assisting and upholding, not to arresting and destroying.
This is why Parliament is surely right to seek, across every shade of opinion, to circumscribe abortion, carefully and agonisingly, and why it is right to insist on some time limit, as the new clause, if amended, would still do, if a growing foetus had to be interrupted and destroyed. Parliament would be wise to adopt this amendment, with its reintroduction of these vital limits. The amendment is designed to circumscribe the greatest of all risks in this area: human fallibility.

Sir David Steel: We are considering four amendments, and before I deal with the main one, I want to mention the other three in passing. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will seek to speak to amendment No. 29, about which he has written to me, so I will say only that I support it and I look forward to hearing what he has to say about it and amendment No. 30.
Amendment No. 28 attempts to write into the main statute the conditions of certification that doctors may make when carrying out certain abortions. My view is that that is best left to the regulations, but perhaps the Minister will say something in answer to the anxieties of those who have tabled the amendment. I shall certainly not support it in the Lobby.
As for amendment No. 4, I was one of those who voted unsuccessfully and on the losing side in Committee on removing the 28-week upper limit and, in certain categories, allowing abortion up to birth. Were a similar amendment to be put before us again I would vote the same way, but the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) should be aware that he is not only reintroducing the 28-week upper limit in this category; far more seriously, he is reintroducing to abortion law the concept of the use of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. The 1967 Act contained no time limit. Instead we decided to incorporate a reference to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. I remind the House that that Act created a presumption of viability at 28 weeks but no reverse presumption of non-viability below 28 weeks. We incorporated that reference precisely because of the uncertainty at that time about precise viability.
We have seen the law in operation for 23 years, and, as everyone knows, private Members' Bills have attempted to bring in a more precise upper time limit for the carrying out of abortions. The Department of Health under successive Governments has by regulation and instruction introduced lower time limits. In Committee, we introduced a general limit on most abortions of specifically 24 weeks. That was a fundamental change to the 1967 Act and to the exceptional upper limit of 28 weeks. The House decided on a free vote that there would be no limit at all in certain categories. I know that the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) attempted to suggest that there might have been some confusion. That suggestion received some support, but I have yet to meet a single Member who has said that he voted the wrong way and was confused.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: rose—

Sir David Steel: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to admit to confusion, may I take that as read and pass on?

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Yes.

Sir David Steel: Even my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) writing in The Tablet of 15 May—this shows how carefully I pay attention to his words—said:
It was suggested that at the end of the two-day marathon debate some MPs had become confused about precisely what they were voting for. Looking through the division lists I do not believe that by and large this is the case.
There is a little twist in the tail, because my hon. Friend then says:
Some may be confused in their beliefs, but there is a fairly consistent pattern in what MPs actually did".

That is true. There may have been an odd case of confusion, but I think that the House was fairly clear, given all the guidance that was around. I wrote to everyone in my party regardless of how he voted, and not one of them voted in a way that he did not mean to.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving publicity to The Tablet. I said that, by and large, there was no great confusion about the way that hon. Members voted. I am glad that the House has an opportunity to consider the matter again, because it raises substantive issues, not just on the matter of handicap but on the uncoupling of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 which my right hon. Friend linked to the Abortion Act 1967. He should now explain to the House why he thinks that it should not be linked.

Sir David Steel: I was in the middle of doing that, and I am sorry that I was deflected by the discussion on confusion. Even if there was minor confusion, it would not have affected the fact that the House, wrongly in my view, voted the way it did.
The amendment is an alteration to the clause which seeks to remove the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 from abortion law. The reason for that is that, if we state specific statutory time limits, as we have done in this legislation, it does not make sense to recreate uncertainty by applying a totally different law on infant life preservation and incorporating it in the Bill. We would be reintroducing the element of doubt which always lay in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. Because the 1967 Act had no statutory limits, we rested our case on the 1929 Act. Experience since then suggested that it is better, and the House has expressed the wish to put specific time limits in abortion legislation.
8.15 pm
This matter was carefully trawled by the Select Committee in the other place. Reference has been made to that. The condition "capable of being born alive", which is in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, is the very phrase which has given rise to so much uncertainty in the minds of the medical profession. The Select Committee in the other place unanimously recommended that there should be a decoupling and that we should state clear statutory limits.
There has been only one consistent effort to secure prosecutions under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. There were four attempts, and they were all made by Professor Scarisbrick who is the chairman of the Life organisation. Hon. Members are used to being badgered by the so-called pro-life organisations. I am pro-life and I object to being characterised as not pro-life. Perhaps it is fair enough for hon. Members to be badgered, but I object to members of the medical profession being badgered and bullied in this way. I am glad to say that all four cases were rejected by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The amendment proposes to reinvite vexatious prosecutions in this area, and we would be wise to avoid it. In the context of the provision that applies to the handicapped, the House of Lords report says on page 18:
If, for example, an unborn child were diagnosed as grossly abnormal and unable to lead any meaningful life, there is in the opinion of the Committee no logic in requiring the mother to carry her unborn child to full term merely because the diagnosis was too late to enable an operation for abortion to be carried out before the 28th completed week.


That is a telling argument in favour of the decision made by the House.
While I did not support the decision to place no upper time limit on these categories, it is perfectly reasonable to support it as long as they are in extremis cases only. Earlier, we heard about a cut-off time limit in the abortion law of other countries. According to the Gunning study, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden have no upper limit in extremis cases of the kind that we are talking about. We are talking about a limited number of cases.
One other country which has no other upper time limit is Scotland. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who is the Father of the House, wisely declined to become entangled in the Scottish case. I assure him that that matter is highly relevant. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act never applied to Scotland, not even after 1967. That means that, within the kingdom, we have an example of a country whose abortion law has no upper time limit. That has certainly not been abused, because in 1988 there were seven abortions over 22 weeks and in 1989 there were five. We are talking about a small number of extremely tragic cases where desperate decisions have to be made by the medical profession.
In that connection I deplore the circular that was put round by the promoters of the amendment. It is by two gentlemen in University college, Oxford. Paragraph 3 says:
If abortion on any of the four grounds results in the delivery of a living and viable foetus, it will be lawful to destroy it during birth for any reason at all, from harelip to hair colour.
That is a gross calumny on the medical profession. I do not think that anyone practising medicine in Britain would destroy a baby during birth because the colour of the hair was wrong.

Mr. Alton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir David Steel: I will not give way. I feel strongly about this matter. The paper is there and hon. Members can make their own speeches. I find such things totally discreditable.
I shall end by quoting from Mr. David Paintin, reader in obstetrics and gynaecology at St. Mary's hospital. He was one of the original medical advisers on my team in 1967. He now says about the proposal that is before us:
There are few circumstances in which abortion is necessary after the 24th week; there were only 23 cases notified in this country in 1988. Most such abortions are performed because the foetus has been shown to have an abnormality that would prevent sustained life after birth or that would result in gross handicap. A small number of such abortions are induced because the woman is gravely ill and her health would be permanently harmed or she might die if the pregnancy continued. In these cases the foetus is so immature or so affected by the illness in the woman that it would not survive. If the foetus is mature enough to have a reasonable chance of survival with modern intensive care, all possible steps are taken to optimise the survival of both mother and foetus; delivery is normally by caesarian section.
He concludes:
A proper ethical attitude to abortion must take into account the potential humanity of the foetus"—
that was the basic principle of the 1967 Act—
but must also consider the humanity of the woman and the circumstances which, in her view and her doctors' view, make continuation of the pregnancy inadvisable. I believe that it is wrong to force the woman to continue the pregnancy to the serious detriment of her health or to force her to carry a foetus that is severely abnormal. The sensible decisions taken by

Parliament in April clarify and improve the law. In my experience, women and doctors agree that abortion after the 24th week should be performed only in the most exceptional circumstances.
I believe that the House should rest by the decision that we have taken.

Mr. Robert Key: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 29 and 30. Amendment No. 30 would clarify the law in relation to selective reduction. The present position, as I understand it, is that it is not clear beyond doubt whether that procedure comes within the terms of the Abortion Act 1967. Some people agree that if after selective reduction a pregnancy continues, that cannot be a termination of pregnancy within the meaning of the 1967 Act. The counter argument is that the procedure constitutes a miscarriage and that it must therefore be done under the protection of the Act. The medical literature abounds with legal cases and learned articles from lawyers trying to argue the problem through. It is clear that there is significant doubt and it is essential that that is removed.
The selective reduction procedure was neither in use nor even contemplated when the legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) was passed in 1967. However, I understand that the procedure has been in use in Britain since 1982. It involves terminating one or more foetuses in a multiple pregnancy. That procedure may be used for a number of reasons. For example, some selective reductions are done because one or more of the foetuses has been diagnosed as having a seriously handicapping condition. In other cases it may be done because carrying a high order multiple pregnancy to term may jeopardise all the foetuses or the woman's life or health. Whether it is appropriate to carry out a selective reduction is, in the last analysis, a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor and the wishes of the woman concerned. I understand that the number of cases is likely to be small.
My explanation has been brief. I hope that whatever moral or ethical stance we take on abortion, we can accept the importance of clarity and that the procedure should be brought within the ambit of the 1967 Act and the controls that it provides.

Mr. Frank Doran: I take the firm view that amendment No. 4, on which I want to concentrate, is thoroughly misconceived, certainly in the way in which it was presented by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). It is also deliberately disingenuous because it is nothing more than an attempt to reverse a decision of the House taken by an emphatic majority in a way which is a mystery to me as a relatively new hon. Member.
We have already heard several hon. Members complain about the large number of voters on that night who were apparently misled or who misled themselves. I have never heard of such a thing from hon. Members. One of the major problems that struck me when I first came to the House was the arrogance of hon. Members who felt that they could do no wrong and always thought that they knew what they were doing; that Parliament, in its great wisdom, is always supreme. Yet here we have a large number of hon. Members bowing before the House and admitting to the commission of a supreme error—that they voted the wrong way because they did not understand measures properly. I wonder what their constituents will


think when they are faced with legislation and issues much more complex than this, on which the majority of hon. Members have strong views, as all the debates on the issue have shown. No hon. Member can make a greater sacrifice than to admit his fallibility, as so many have done. But they are not lowering the ego quotient in this place; it is simply a desperate attempt to reverse an emphatic decision of the House, and it should be seen in that light.
What saddens me about the efforts that have been made to reverse the votes on 24 April is the way in which many arguments have been perverted. Few of the arguments that we heard from the right hon. Member for Selby and those who support him have rested on fact. I have a copy of the paper that was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, which purports to be a legal opinion from John Finnis, professor of law and legal philosophy, university of Oxford, and Dr. John Keown lecturer in law and co-director of the centre for health care law at the university of Leicester. I am a solicitor and well used to reading legal opinions and I am appalled at the content of that paper, which I understand was circulated to all hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has already taken issue with part of it.
It is important to look at the paper, to assess the arguments with which it presents us. For example, it is suggested in the first paragraph that an interpretation of the clause that was passed by the House on 24 April would allow abortion until birth in a wide range of cases, markedly altering the existing law, which allows the destruction of a viable foetus only to save the mother's life. Only the most asinine of lawyers would interpret in that way a clause that is specific about the legal requirements before it is permitted to operate.
For example, according to clause 34(1)(b), it must be
shown
that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman".
That is a severe legal test, as are the other tests. Clause 34(1)(c) says:
that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated".
That again is an extremely serious legal test, and if any doctor failed to satisfy it, he could be prosecuted. Finally, clause 34(1)(d) says:
that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
Doctors operating in that area know of the attempts to examine their work by the so-called pro-life or, as I prefer to call them, anti-abortion organisations. Their work has been handicapped. I do not want to attack the integrity of our medical profession, which is what the right hon. Member for Selby and his supporters have done. They do an excellent job in difficult circumstances. It is sometimes a difficult and tasteless job. But to make their job that much more difficult by suggesting that the medical profession would willy-nilly ignore those strict provisions in the Bill, which I hope will become an Act, is unacceptable and a smear on the medical profession.
For example, it is suggested in the paper that some doctors will interpret the onerous conditions that apply to them as including a hare lip or a cleft palate. That is pure scaremongering, which is appalling coming from a professor of law and a lecturer in law.

Mr. Alton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) refused to give way on that point, and as it has been cited a second time, it is important to clarify it. Doctors at Guy's hospital recently advertised for mothers who would otherwise be having abortions on grounds of cleft palate to come forward in order to carry out operations in the womb. As much as we may be grateful for progress in medical science, does not the hon. Gentleman accept that if those are the sort of reasons being given by doctors for performing abortions, it is perfectly acceptable for Professor Finnis to quote them in his letter?

Mr. Doran: It is perfectly acceptable for Professor Finnis to quote such examples in context. However, we have instead the bald statement that in the view of that learned professor, the justification for terminating pregnancies is being interpreted in the way that he suggests. That is unacceptable, and his paper bears little resemblance to what I suppose was meant to be an objective assessment of how the Bill will operate. The paper goes on:
If abortion on any of the four grounds results in the delivery of a living and viable foetus, it would be lawful to destroy it during birth for any reason at all, from harelip to hair colour.
That is an outrageous statement from practising lawyers, let alone a professor of law at one of our principal universities.
I am not sure what is intended by that alleged interpretation, but if an aborted foetus is found to be alive and is by medical opinion thought capable of sustained survival and is effectively viable, then I as a lawyer should have no hesitation is saying that the destruction of that foetus would be criminal.
Scaremongering of the type that I quoted, by two apparently respectable individuals, is outrageous and has produced a contrary response in me.

Ms. Harman: They ought to be reported to the Law Society or to the Bar Council.

Mr. Doran: My hon. Friend says that they should be reported, but it is unlikely that either of those two gentlemen has even practised real law. Certainly there is no suggestion of that in the opinion that I quoted.
As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale pointed out, the medical profession has adapted to the 1967 Act as it has progressed, and the Scottish experience is worth bearing in mind and examining. Any lawyer offering an opinion should look at current practice, particularly when it is so close to home.
I circulated a paper written by one of my constituents, Professor Allan Templeton, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology in Aberdeen. I shall read out part of his paper because it is important to record the professional medical view on a provision similar to that passed on 24 April, which I hope will become law. It has operated in Scotland since 1967.
It is not a case of widespread abuse of the 1967 Act, of abortions being performed willy nilly, on request, and of reasons for them being invented afterwards. It is not a case either of abortions being performed for trivial reasons—and the suggestion that they have occurred because of the risk of cleft palates or hare lips is intended to trivialise the medical decision. Instead, it is a case of establishing a body


of principle related to the obligations that a medical practitioner has to his patients and to the law of the land, which is currently the Abortion Act 1967. Professor Templeton says:
It has been accepted in obstetric practice for some time that pregnancy should be terminated, regardless of the gestation, if the mother's life is at risk. Such a situation is not infrequent in obstetric practice, associated with such conditions as pre-eclampsia, abruption and placenta praevia. Similarly, it is accepted that the diagnosis of a lethal foetal abnormality is, if the mother so desires, an indication to terminate the pregnancy, regardless of the gestation. The classification of the procedure can vary. For example, we recently terminated a pregnancy"—
at Aberdeen royal infirmary—
of 27 weeks' gestation, at the mother's wish, because of the diagnosis of renal agenesis, a condition which results in absence of the kidneys and is incompatible with life … This is a clear example of current recognition that the age of viability is somewhat less than 28 weeks, and probably nearer to 24 weeks. The point here is that doctors have developed self-imposed guidelines that have emerged from their experience of current clinical practice. Thus, the perception has grown that it would be quite inappropriate for a variety of reasons to terminate pregnancies approaching the age of viability for reasons other than where the mother's life is at risk or there is a lethal"—
and Professor Templeton emphasises lethal—
foetal abnormality. This self-imposed, unwritten code of practice is evident on scrutiny of recent figures.
Professor Templeton gives figures for the number of late terminations in 1987, 1988 and 1989. In 1987, there were in Scotland 11 terminations over 22 weeks; in 1988, seven terminations; and in 1989, five terminations. That is not a story of abuse of the law or of an apparent latitude that the measure passed on 24 April will allow elsewhere in Britain.
The law is being observed responsibly, and that will continue. I have no reason to believe that doctors in England and Wales are any less responsible than those in Scotland. For that reason, I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will oppose amendment No. 4 and will base their decision on how to vote on the facts—and not in response to the scaremongering tactics that have been evident so far today.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments and to my own amendment No. 28. The law currently states that a doctor should abort on the ground of disability only if the child runs a substantial risk of having a disability and if the disability itself is serious, yet there is no method of checking on the various disabilities that are the reasons why abortions are performed. When an abortion is undertaken the forms that are returned often show that it was performed not because of a disability but for a different reason. If we are to draw a distinction between handicapped and healthy children, the time has come for a ready check on the disabilities that are deemed to be so severe that the child is to be killed after viability and not be allowed to survive.
When the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—who on this occasion is my hon. Friend moved his original Bill, he clearly stated that there was evidence that doctors were aborting in the case of harelip, cleft palate or club foot. At that time, we were not debating abortions for disability up to birth but abortions within the limits of the 1929 Act. When the hon. Member for

Mossley Hill made those statements, he was ridiculed. The same sort of reply was given then as we heard tonight—that such claims are a slur on the medical profession, which would never do such a thing. However, there is no means of extracting from the Secretary of State for Health whether such a practice would arise, because there is no obligation in an abortion to submit to the Secretary of State a clear definition of the disability involved.
In case anyone doubts that abortions have been carried out for the reasons cited by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill I will refer to a letter that I received from Anthony Rowsell, a consultant plastic surgeon at Guy's hospital, who is responsible for performing the pre-natal surgery, for which we are all very grateful, on unborn children with minor deformities. He wrote in defence of his work because he misunderstood my remarks in Committee, thinking that I was attacking pre-natal surgery. He informs me that mothers not only have abortions but that they are routinely offered. That should be a cause of worry because the legislation says that abortions should not be offered routinely in the case of minor defects but that there should be a substantial risk of serious disability.
If, as hon. Members on the other side of the argument frequently contend, the medical profession has nothing to hide, and the Act is working well, there could be no possible objection to asking the profession to tell us how often it routinely aborts for a minor defect. If we have a requirement that the nature of the disability should be specified on the form, we shall be able to see whether doctors are aborting for spina bifida, hydrocephalus and cystic fibrosis or for harelip and club foot. I cannot see any objection to giving that information.
If the House tonight confirms its decision—I sincerely hope and believe that it will not—that we are going to abort for disability until birth, even if the circumstances are rare, we have a sovereign duty, not merely a right, to check on the nature of the disability which is the reason for the abortion being carried out.

Ms. Harman: I intervene on the point that the hon. Lady made about Guy's hospital. I am not familiar with the letter that the plastic surgeon wrote to her, but I presume that he is not in the regional genetic investigation department, which is run from the hospital. Guy's serves many of my constituents, and I had my babies there. For my last pregnancy I had amniocentesis and I went through the entire counselling procedure. It was never suggested to me that the discovery of an abnormality such as harelip or club foot should be grounds for considering a termination. It was made clear to me, as a patient, that the object of counselling and investigation was to discover whether there was a serious abnormality. In the process they might discover minor abnormalities, but that would not mean counselling for an abortion. The hon. Lady should be careful before she continues in that vein.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall be careful, because I have ample evidence, including that letter from Guy's, which I have in my hand, that it is, or was, routine to offer abortion for minor defects. If we need any proof of that, think of the police investigation into the case of the King's college baby. I shall raise that case later when I discuss the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). We know that in that case the disability was not serious, it was not life threatening, it would not cause the child to be crippled, to have restricted physical movement


or restricted mental agility. Yet, an abortion—it was not an abortion, but a selective reduction, which is one of our dinky terms for fratricide—was carried out at twenty-seven and half weeks.
If the medical profession has nothing to hide, it cannot object to filling in the forms and doing it on time. Why does the Department tolerate a situation in which more than 300 of those forms were returned more than six months late in the past year?

Mr. Thurnham: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way later.
I shall now turn to the important amendment, No. 4, tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). I regret the passing of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 from the Abortion Act. I should like to digress briefly before you call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on what I believe to be one of the most serious effects of removing that Act—now, for the first time since 1929, we have no long-term law in place.
One of the greatest achievements of the 1929 Act was that it was drawn up when medical science was nothing like it is now, and the Act stood the test of 60 years. The reason why it stood the test of time was that it was drawn up with a long-term view in mind. It did not give 28 weeks as a limit for abortion. It said that 28 weeks was a rebuttable presumption. The guiding principle of the 1929 Act was the capability of a child to be born alive. As viability came down gradually from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, children between the ages of 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy effectively enjoyed the protection of the 1929 Act.
8.45 pm
I mention that fact to the Secretary of State because it is important that the point is not overlooked during the debate. It is a pity that the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was not selected, and it is important that his argument is not overlooked. If, in two years' time, the medical profession turns round and says, "We have improved incubation techniques to such an extent that we can now keep alive 40 per cent. of 22-week-olds and a few more 23-week-olds", what protection will there be in law for them''

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that no one has repealed the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. The only effect of what the House has done is that the Act does not now apply to cases provided for by the Abortion Act. The effect of the amendment is to apply two pieces of legislation to the same operation, in some cases with very confusing results. The House voted before for the Abortion Act to have limits, or no limits, and for those cases to disapply the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. The Act still applies to non-Abortion Act cases.
If the hon. Lady's second question was "What will happen if medical science moves on," if the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists agrees that 24 weeks is too high a limit, the House could come back and review the Abortion Act limit which we have just set in the light of medical knowledge. That does not mean that we would start applying two Acts and reducing them both. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act has been set aside for

Abortion Act cases, largely to ensure that there is clarity in the law, in line with the votes which the House cast last time on the Abortion Act limits.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for confirming two things. First, no long-term protection exists under the law and we would have to come back to the House to decide again. I thought that the purpose of the grievous dissension and wrangling in the past few months was a clear long-term law, so that it would not be necessary to have such parliamentary upheaval at regular intervals. If we do that, surely it is essential to build in a legal protection so that we do not have to come back to say, "Look, the situation has changed."
As a result of the decoupling of the Acts, the House has inadvertently removed protection from viable children under the 24th week, removed long-term law and made it certain that, at some time, we shall have to return to the vexed business of time limits. I certainly do not think that that is desirable, and I have said so in public on numerous occasions.
All hon. Members should understand that that is the effect of removing the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. I appreciate that it has not been repealed, but decoupled, and I do not want to be critical of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, because he and his Department have been most helpful in the past few months, assisting us with whether an issue was valid or technically cohesive. However, for the past year I have issued challenge after challenge about the observation of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. For example, why was a lethal injection given if there was no possibility that a child could be born alive in the first place? I gave several other instances. The Secretary of State admitted that it did not work particularly well. Instead of tightening up and policing the Act properly, his answer to the failure of difficulties in observing the Infant Life (Preservation) Act was to remove the Act altogether.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I fail to follow my hon. Friend. Obviously neither of us wishes to interrupt—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the Secretary of State please desist from turning his back on the Chair? Will he please address the Chair?

Mr. Clarke: The pleasure of looking in your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will enable me to turn towards the Chair.
Amendment No. 4 decouples the Infant Life (Preservation) Act in respect of abortions carried out under 24 weeks. However, my hon. Friend's point is irrelevant. The amendment maintains the position—which is not as troublesome as she claims—that as medical science moves on, the House will reduce the limit from 24 weeks. However, her amendment still decouples the Act. She is using the Act to introduce confusion into the law by making the Infant Life (Preservation) Act and the Abortion Act both apply above 24 weeks in certain cases and 28 weeks in others.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, although he did not offer any elucidation.
I said at the beginning of my speech that it was digressing a little to refer to babies under 24 weeks' gestation, but I want to get it clearly on record that there is no longer long-term protection for them.
Let me examine what we have agreed in regard to disability. I do not want to discuss again whether there was confusion. Although hon. Members may have understood clearly enough the instructions and description of any particular amendment, the interdependency and interrelationship between various amendments became more difficult to work out. When they decoupled the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, they thought that, under the guidance of the Secretary of State, they were simplifying a difficult legal situation and producing an administrative device to make things tidier rather than, as a result of the previous failure to write in limits, removing completely any protection for disabled children right up to birth.
When I introduced my Bill I was quite happy to exempt disability, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) when he presented his Bill. But we did not mean that we would exempt disability up to birth; we meant that we would exempt it up to the limit of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. The removal of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act effectively meant that there would be exemption up to birth.
I feel very strongly about the matter, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and I shall take an intervention from him in a moment. However, it is a gross insult that disabled people could switch on their televisions and radio at any hour of the day or night during the past few months and hear politicians arguing about whether they have the right to be born. We would not offer that insult to any racial or religious group, so we should not offer it to disabled people. It is wrong.
When a disabled child is born, that child has the full protection of the law. It does not matter how gross the disability, how handicapped the child embarks on life or how grievous are the effects of that handicap on the mother and the family. At that point the child has the full protection of the law. However, a few hours or even a few minutes earlier, according to the letter of the law, the child does not have that protection. I have stood up in the House time and again and argued that the right that we extend to a child in an incubator should be extended to a child of identical age in the womb. I never thought that the day would come when I would have to stand here and argue in the House of Commons, the mother of Parliaments and the centre of civilisation, that it is wrong not to extend the same protection to a child a few hours before birth as applies to a child that has been born prematurely and already enjoys the full protection of the law. It is wrong, morally repugnant and an insult to the handicapped.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend has been issuing challenges and talking about duties. The effect of the amendments would be that more severely handicapped children would be born. My hon. Friend is in favour of more severely handicapped children being born. The other day I heard that she had said that if she had a handicapped relative she would give up her job to look after that person. What is she waiting for? There are thousands of severely handicapped children in institutions whose families cannot look after them. Why does she not adopt one? Is she afraid that a social services committee would not give approval for her to be a mother?

Miss Widdecombe: That last comment shows the degree of desperation prevailing on the other side of the argument. When hon. Members have to resort to personal abuse, it is quite clear that they have no argument. I must tell my normal hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North East that there is a queue of people waiting to adopt Down's syndrome children. Are we now saying that Down's syndrome is a cause for abortion up to birth although there is a queue to adopt those children? That queue consists of couples, not single people like myself who could not provide a father. I believe that the best start in life for handicapped children is to have two parents.

Mr. Alton: I support entirely what the hon. Lady is saying. I reiterate that if the state were not prepared to provide homes for disabled people and if there were no adoptive parents, many people in church and voluntary organisations, including the Bishops of England and Wales, have made it absolutely clear that they would provide homes for any disabled person.

Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) was somewhat cheap to say the least? He has raised that point during every debate on the subject. I should like to put on record how much I admire and respect his wife who, for seven days a week, cares for their severely handicapped adopted child. However, it does the hon. Gentleman's reputation no good to raise the matter because we know that he is extremely active in the House, in his constituency and as an entrepreneurial business man. So he cannot undertake the very duties that he challenges other hon. Members to undertake.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but we should not argue about each other's personal capability or willingness to undertake those duties. That would not be profitable.
Many members of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and of LIFE and many others have adopted handicapped children but do not make a public parade of it. They also deserve respect. It is not confined to one side of the argument.
I deal now with the Finnis letter and the statement that it is possible to terminate for disability before birth. The 1929 Act was introduced—as can be checked in the Hansard of the time—precisely to fill the lacuna of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 which did not protect the child during the process of birth. That is on record and is a matter of legal history. I do not draw any pictures of doctors aborting during birth; I am saying that the 1929 Act filled that lacuna, but the removal of the Act reinstates it.
Those who share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and I will vigorously oppose the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. Amendment No. 30 proposes to bring selection reductions under the Abortion Act. I am not sure that the amendment is technically viable because it refers to a miscarriage. A miscarriage is not an abortion and it is not a selective reduction or a stillbirth. When a woman has a miscarriage she loses her child. In a selective reduction, the child is left in the womb until birth occurs naturally of its


surviving siblings. In the King's college baby case, there was selective reduction at 27½ weeks for a mild form of handicap. One twin was allowed to live, but the other was killed in the womb by an injection of potassium chloride.
9 pm
I do not use, and have never used, the term "murder". I do not think that it is helpful to do so and it causes much guilt and grief for women who have had abortions. But when at 27½ weeks one twin is allowed to survive and the other is deliberately killed with a lethal injection, I cannot think of another term to use.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When I was carrying our first child I did not understand why my husband suddenly lost two stone in a fortnight. He did not tell me for many years that he had been told by the doctor that I was expecting one baby with two heads. In this day and age, those delightful children, who have twins of their own, would have been aborted.

Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We daily read stories of parents who have been given the wrong information—although perhaps not as horrendous as that—by the medical profession, whose children go on to lead normal, healthy and fulfilled lives. That is a genuine error of the medical profession; it never deliberately gives misinformation.
If selective reduction is to be governed by the Abortion Act, it will be made legal, even after viability has occurred. We now have no time limits, for example, for reductions for disability. Viable children in the womb could be killed quite legally. But that is not always done, even for serious or minor disability. When a woman discovers in the early stages that she is having a multiple birth—quite often these days, as a result of being overimplanted through IVF techniques; the doctor creates the situation which he solves by selective reduction—how does she choose? If there is nothing wrong with them but there are simply too many, how does she choose? On the grounds of sex, hair colour, colour of eyes? What is the deliberate killing of children in those circumstances called? If that is to be called abortion, when it is not—it certainly is not a miscarriage—we are going down a dangerous path.
Amendment No. 29 gives the Secretary of State powers to enlarge the classes of premises that will be licensed. I believe that that is merely a paving measure—even if it is not intended as such—for self-administered home abortion.

Mr. Key: It has been brought to my attention that what my hon. Friend has just said appears in the whip issued by the pro-life group. That is not the intention and, quite inadvertently I am sure, my hon. Friend has been very misleading. When I spoke, for all of three minutes so that we could hear arguments from all hon. Members, in the cause of brevity I did not refer to amendment No. 29. My hon. Friend has been speaking for 30 minutes, and with the leave of the House I shall later seek to explain her misleading argument.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall take my hon. Friend's hint and begin to curtail my remarks. I said not that he had deliberately set out to create that, but that it would be the effect. If the Secretary of State is finally able to allow self-administered abortion at home, through RU486 or

whatever else is developed, there will be legalised back-street abortions with precious little counselling or control. That will be the ultimate effect.
We are told that Scotland has never experienced any problems, despite not having the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Scottish medical practice is governed by the General Medical Council and the ethics committee. Its ethics are based on English law. That point has been made by a number of Ministers in different circumstances. Now that the English law is being changed, there is no reason to suppose that there will not be very late abortions. If the amendment spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East is passed, more disabled children will be born. The amendments that have already been agreed to will lead to an increase in the number of abortions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East admitted as much tonight, even though he may not have intended to do so.
The ILPA has resulted in the removal of legislation that has been on the statute book for many years. We shall be making a distinction, up to birth, between disabled and healthy children. If the other amendments are passed, they are likely to end up as home abortions and as selective reductions.
I apologise for addressing the House on the subject at such length, but it is important.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is little time in which to discuss these important issues. A number of hon. Members wish to take part. Therefore, brief speeches will be in order.

Ms. Richardson: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) had to say about disabled foetuses. She shows great concern for disabled people, so I was surprised when it was drawn to my attention that the hon. Lady voted against the last report of the Select Committee on Social Services on community care. All hon. Members want the interests of carers to be safeguarded. However, the hon. Lady was the only member of the Select Committee to vote against the report. That is extraordinary, especially when one remembers that she has expressed support for the handicapped and the need for the House to think about how Parliament and the Government can help the disabled.
The subject with which we are dealing amounts to a re-run of what happened on 24 April. That is extremely distressing. I have been a Member of Parliament for about 15 years. I cannot recall another occasion when cool, decisive decisions have been taken and then, six to eight weeks later, reversed because, it is said, many hon. Members did not know what they were doing. A few hon. Members may have been confused; it was, in many respects, a confusing evening. For about two and a half hours we were trooping through the Division Lobbies. However, I was extremely pleased and surprised to see that hon. Members seemed to know what they were doing. I did not find that hon. Members were saying to one another, "Gosh, I don't know what I'm voting about tonight. Should I be in this Lobby? Oh, no, I am in the wrong Lobby." That did not seem to be happening.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady was not in the same Lobby that I was in. Her side of the argument


suddenly withdrew the tellers in their Lobby, which admittedly threw our Lobby into confusion. There was a quick succession of votes and the fact that the hon. Lady's Lobby suddenly withdrew tellers on a Division on one amendment threw people into confusion.

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Lady is apparently saying that something that we did on our side of the argument threw her side into disarray.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We had gone into the Lobby to vote for something and then suddenly, quite unaccountably, the hon. Lady's side of the argument withdrew their tellers.

Ms. Richardson: I am very sorry, but this is the House of Commons and I should have thought that hon. Members were used to reading the Order Paper to know what they were doing. The hon. Lady's comments are quite an admission. It is not our job to say, "Stop, are you sure you know what you're doing? Are you sure that you really want to withdraw this?" I am not suggesting that the hon. Lady is stupid, because I am sure that she is not. I am really sure about that.
I honestly believe that by and large, with possibly a few exceptions—one or two hon. Members have admitted that they were in the wrong Lobby on the wrong occasion—hon. Members knew what they were doing. The fact that the clause stand part debate was carried by such an overwhelming majority and that hon. Members stayed to the very end to register their votes must be significant. Nearly two months later, we are effectively having a re-run of that issue.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And you have lost.

Ms. Richardson: The danger is that we shall undo what we did less than two months ago. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) can recall an occasion when the House has taken two different stances within such a short period. I certainly cannot recall such an occasion.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does the hon. Lady recognise that some of us knew what we were doing on that night? I abstained then, and I am grateful for the opportunity to think again about the issue. Although I disagree with a great deal of what I have heard tonight and I particularly deplore the personal insults which have been flying around on both sides of the House, I have concluded that amendment No. 4 should be supported.

Ms. Richardson: Well, okay, people are entitled to change their minds. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is honest and gutsy enough to get up and say that she wants to change her mind. However, I do not believe that the House as a whole wants a re-run. If we were to take that practice to its logical conclusion, we would be re-running votes that we had taken during the week.

Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Richardson: I do not really want to give way, because I do not want to spend all the short time available to me on this constitutional issue. However, as the hon.

Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) so ably chaired the Standing Committee on the Abortion Bill and was so kind to us, I will certainly give way to him.

Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She was most gracious to give way.
We are dealing with this Report stage and during the passage of Bills hon. Members have the opportunity and the duty to keep thinking about the issues under discussion. I happen to believe that there was an element of confusion on that night of the long votes, and that we will prove it this evening. Hon. Members will vote and the Bill has not yet completed its passage through the House. What we are doing tonight is entirely constitutional and proper. At the end of this evening, we will know where we stand.

Ms. Richardson: I did not suggest that this was unconstitutional. I said that it was unusual and that I could not remember it happening before. We must remember that the Leader of the House specifically gave the House, as the Department gave the House, a clear opportunity to vote on this issue on 24 April after a full day's debate.
The majority of hon. Members who participated that day—and there were many—feel that, although it is perfectly true that we are today discussing the Bill on Report, we are entitled to re-discuss issues and I acknowledge that. The fact that we had a Committee of the whole House with not just one child's guide from the Leader of the House, but child's guides all over the place meant that the House knew what it was doing. Not only hon. Members who supported my argument but hon. Members who supported the other side of the argument have expressed surprise that the whole matter should be re-run.
9.15 pm
The effect of what was passed that night was the same as the provisions of Lord Houghton's Abortion (Amendments) Bill in the other place. A considerable amount of briefing material explaining its provisions had crossed hon. Members' desks well in advance of the debate on 24 April. Some hon. Members actually tabled that Bill as a new clause so hon. Members were not unfamiliar with the arguments and proposals. The Houghton Bill was supported unanimously by the House of Lords and was based on the report of a Select Committee that had sat for two years. The members of that Select Committee took the same position as the House has taken today.
There are two reasons why the House of Lords thought that a woman's health and foetal handicap should be exempt from time limits. It is difficult to distinguish between life and health. Doctors cannot be sure whether a pregnancy will kill a woman immediately, but it could shorten her life considerably, and that must be taken into account. Pregnancy could damage a woman severely. It could put her in a wheelchair or induce illness such as multiple sclerosis. Some handicaps are so severe that the foetus cannot survive. In a dramatic case, the brain or some other vital organ may be missing.
It is difficult to define the phrase
capable of being born alive".
There have, quite rightly, been many judgments and much case law and discussion on this. The recent judgment in the Rance case, for example, has extended case law in this area. It now appears that, if a foetus is capable of drawing


a few breaths, the law can regard it as viable. We must tackle that decision, because a foetus with no brain may be capable of being born alive, but it cannot survive for more than a few hours. We must face these difficult problems, and the House did so on 24 April with enormous good sense.
There is no evidence that doctors have ever performed late abortions for trivial reasons—not even in the case of the Carlisle baby, which is often referred to in the House. On investigation, it was found that there was no case to answer. The upshot of the Carlisle case was that the woman concerned, having had to make a terribly difficult decision, had her case investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the whole thing was splashed across the British press. That woman was put through enormous agony.
I do not understand why those hon. Members who are anti-abortion cannot accept a decision that was taken by this House in good faith and with substantial votes so recently. I think that I heard those hon. Members say before 24 April that if the House had an opportunity to vote on that matter, they would accept the results of that vote. I believe that the hon. Member for Maidstone said that. I hate to say that they suggested that they would go away, but they certainly suggested that they would not raise the matter in the regular way that they have been raising it for the past several years—as I know to my cost.

Miss Widdecombe: It is the same Bill.

Ms. Richardson: Here we are, not two months later, and those hon. Members are raising the whole thing again.
I was pleased this morning to receive a copy of a letter from Sir George Pinker, the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which was addressed and faxed to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). It stated:
I am writing… before tomorrow's debate to confirm that the College's view would be in support of Lord Brightman's committee's findings and we would support his letter of 19th June in the Times.
I am sure that hon. Members who are interested enough to be in the Chamber now will have read the letter. Sir George Pinker continued:
We would not like to see the Infant Life (Preservation) Act insinuated into the provisions of the Abortion Act.
That is a clear and informed decision. The House has a duty to take note—as we usually do—of the views of the RCOG because it is composed of a large number of distinguished people.
I hope tonight that we shall decisively reject amendment No. 4, just as on 24 April we decisively decided to vote as we did. We shall support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Although there is possibly a technical drafting problem with one of them, I am sure that it could be put right—

Mr. Key: indicated dissent.

Ms. Richardson: I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head about there being a drafting problem
On balance, we feel that his amendments should be supported. I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby to defeat this dangerous amendment, amendment No. 4.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I begin by confirming that all four of the amendments that have been selected are the subject of a free vote as far as the Government are concerned. No Whip is being applied to my right hon. and hon. Friends or—as far as I am aware—to any hon. Member. When we refer to Whips in this context, we are talking about briefs that people take from colleagues who are sympathetic to their point of view, which will help to guide them through the amendments.
As this is one of our last debates at this stage of our deliberations on the Bill, I am pleased to record the fact that the House has so far handled the Bill with considerable care. Although there are strong feelings among hon. Members, I am sure that we all regret that a slight note of abuse has begun to creep into the debate.
Although I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on most of these issues —I have, however, voted with her three times this evening —I have the highest regard for the way in which she puts her case and for the strength of her convictions. Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) is a long-time colleague, for whose views I have the highest regard.
I wish to make a few brief factual points about the three less important amendments and shall then deal as briefly as I can with amendment No. 4. First, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), on selective reduction—amendment No. 30—is correctly drafted.

Mr. Frank Field: So we should be given its source.

Mr. Clarke: Some doubt has been raised about that. Secondly, the amendment would have the effect of clarifying the law as we believe it stands. The best advice that we can obtain is that selective reduction is subject to the Abortion Act 1967 but that there is considerable doubt about the matter. The effect of the amendment would be to clarify the position. The only effect of not accepting it would be to leave the law shrouded in doubt.

Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State explain then why the word "miscarriage" is used in the amendment when there is no miscarriage and the baby stays in the womb until it is born?

Mr. Clarke: We have taken advice from parliamentary counsel and others. The difficulty of deciding exactly what selective reduction is, when the foetus is killed inside the womb, makes the position different from that of ordinary abortion. Therefore, miscarriage is regarded as the legally correct description. I am advised that the amendment is correctly drafted to catch selective reduction. It makes it clear that selective reduction can be carried out only if the practitioner complies with the abortion legislation in whatever form it emerges from Parliament.
Amendment No. 29, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, would give the Secretary of State the power to approve a place in relation to treatment consisting primarily in the use of such medicines as may be specified. The amendment anticipates the possibility that drugs such as RU486 will be licensed and approved for use in this country. As the House knows, in France about 30,000 women have chosen that method of lawful abortion. It does not involve surgery or general anaesthesia. If that drug is ever introduced here, it will extend the range of choice available to women and to


doctors who prescribe treatment. As the law stands, if no power such as that contained in the amendment is provided, it will continue to be necessary for the patient to have the drug administered in a hospital or other approved place. There is no medical reason for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone mistakenly suggested that the abortion pill will be given out and taken home. First, no such pill is yet licensed here. It will not be licensed unless the Committee on Safety of Medicines is satisfied when the application is made that it should be licensed. Such a pill would be administered only in closely regulated circumstances under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner.
A question was asked earlier about what type of premises would be used for administering such a drug. It is possible that the pill could be administered in a GP's surgery under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner. The patient would still have to return two days later to be given the pessary.
All that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury seeks to ensure is that, if such a drug is licensed, the Secretary of State will at least have the power in primary legislation to approve the places and circumstances in which it might be used. If we do not address that matter this evening and if the drug is licensed in a year or two, there will be a private Member's Bill on every Friday for several years about whether the circumstances in which the drug is administered should be changed. It is for the House to decide.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: I apologise to the Father of the House, to whom I should normally give way out of respect. However, I am sure that the House does not want me to spend so long on these three amendments that I cut other hon. Members out on amendment No. 4.
There is hardly any difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and me on amendment No. 28. It deals with whether it should be necessary to record the handicap in the case of abortions carried out on the ground of handicap of the child. There is some point to the amendment. It would finally answer one way or the other the continual claim that abortion is carried out for a hare lip or other such condition. I share the doubts of those who say that that does not take place. My hon. Friend is convinced that it takes place, but we do not know because no one is required to notify what the handicap is. The only argument for the House to consider is how to go about recording handicap.
If amendment No. 28 is accepted, it will be necessary on the green form, a certificate which must be filled in before the operation is carried out, to specify the handicap in every case from no weeks to 28 weeks, or however many weeks we allow. I give an undertaking to the House that if that amendment is defeated the Government intend to introduce regulations to make it necessary for the nature of the handicap to be specified on the notification for a late abortion after 24 weeks. I shall not argue the point because people can reflect on that and decide which method they prefer. I believe that it will be necessary to introduce a record of the nature of the handicap.
9.30 pm
Everyone who has spoken tonight will agree that amendment No. 4 is the one that matters most. We must first be clear about the factual effect of amendment No. 4. Unlike the other three, amendment No. 4 does not relate to a new issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone are trying to reverse the effects of amendments (i) and (f) that were carried on 24 April. They openly acknowledge that that is their intention, together with the decoupling of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which resulted from the acceptance of amendment (q). My hon. Friends want to reverse the combination of those three amendments.
Let us be clear what the House did on that occasion, upon which we are now being asked to reflect. The amendments introduced, without time limit, the right to an abortion on the new ground of preventing
grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
Recently some constituents told me that that means abortion on demand, without a time limit, up to birth. That is a travesty of the truth. The amendment deals with cases where the mother is having such difficulties, for example because of hypertension, that she is running the risk of severe permanent damage to her brain, heart, or kidneys. The doctor then feels the need to intervene to terminate the pregnancy, as he must intervene if the life of the mother is plainly threatened. The letter that was quoted in the debate has already revealed that the most reputable practitioners would attempt to do so in a way that saved the life of a viable foetus, if possible.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that in those particular circumstances, where the blood pressure of the mother threatens to damage her kidneys, the doctor could induce the birth without killing the baby?

Mr. Clarke: In effect, that is what the doctor will try to do and that will have the effect of terminating the pregnancy. The doctor will terminate the pregnancy while attempting to save the life of the baby if he can. I believe that there will be few cases in which that will happen, but we must consider them.
On the previous occasion when we considered the Bill the House allowed, without time limit, abortions on the existing ground of the substantial risk
that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has already said that that covers cases where the child may be capable of life and have the ability to breathe and move after birth, but have no brain. It would be incapable of sustained existence and in that case an abortion could be carried out without a time limit.
I understand how strongly and sincerely hon. Members are arguing that that decision should be reversed. Tonight, the House will vote on whether to reverse the decision to introduce no time limit on the two grounds that I have specified.
It appears that we are being asked to reconsider because people were confused on the previous occasion that we considered the Bill. I must address that point because the Leader of the House and I were responsible for the ordering of that debate and for the attempts to inform hon. Members about what was happening. I have obtained the two documents that we circulated. One was from the


Leader of the House—a copious document—and, because people said that it was long and difficult, a short document was published by the Whip responsible for the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), which was distributed to hon. Members on both sides of the House who wanted to know for what they were voting.
As I said in an earlier intervention, the diagram was absolutely clear. It explained that in relation to grave permanent injury to the health of the woman, amendment (f) imposed no limit, (g) would be 28 weeks, and in the case of a substantial risk of serious handicap, the relevant amendment would introduce no limit, compared with the 28 weeks in the Bill.
The guide produced by the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North—it was described as an idiot guide—described amendment (f) as
Liberalising—provides no time limit in those cases where mother risks grave injury.
That was carried by 337 votes to 146, with myself voting with the majority. Amendment (i) was described in that guide as
Liberalising—provides no time limit for abortion if child is likely to be seriously handicapped.
That was carried by 277 votes to 201. I voted on the losing side on that occasion, as did the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, because I should have preferred 28 weeks for handicapped cases.
I checked the Division lists. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby voted the wrong way on both occasions. Knowing his views and convictions and examining those Division lists, I am sure that he did not intend to vote the way that he did on those occasions. I cannot but help think that that is why my right hon. Friend has been asked to move the amendment, for he is the only one who appears to have voted the wrong way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) voted the wrong way once; he got one wrong and one right. All other hon. Members who voted on that occasion voted then as they are speaking now. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they went down—I went down with them—by 76 votes in one Division, they had a majority of almost 190 against them in the other.
An attempt is now being made to reverse the situation —giving the House a second opportunity, as has been said —but to avoid putting the same Question for the second time, those in favour of that course are using the mechanism of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. They are bringing a confused method back into the Bill by reversing the former decision.
To reintroduce the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, as amendment No. 4 would do, would take us back to the strange feature of that Act, in that before 28 weeks it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the child was capable of being born alive, and after 28 weeks there is a rebuttable presumption. That has always been confusing, as we all know. I do not claim that it is unintelligible to lawyers. It has not existed in Scotland, although I am sure that Scottish lawyers would have no more difficulty in understanding it than English lawyers.
If the amendment were made, taking the concept of grave permanent injury to the health of the mother back to 24 weeks—I did not vote for that on the previous occasion —the effect would be that between 24 and 28 weeks there would be an offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act if it were proved that the child was capable of being

born alive; above 28 weeks there would be an offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act unless it was shown that the child was not capable of being born alive; and in the case of the child born with serious physical or mental abnormalities, there would be no offence if it was under 28 weeks—none of the long-term protection to which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone was, I think, referring when she said that she was trying to defend that aspect—but above 28 weeks there would be an offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act unless it was shown that the child was not capable of being born alive.
I have selected from a large table circumstances describing the effects of amendment No. 4 on termination under different grounds after 24 weeks. I said on the previous occasion that the legal consequence of reversing the provision in the way suggested would be unbelievably confusing. As was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone—the Whip for the evening, if I may use that expression—the effect for doctors would be so confusing that they would know that above 24 weeks they would be at risk from the law if they carried out an abortion in the case of proven brain damage to the woman and above 28 weeks they would be at risk from the law if the child was suffering from severe foetal handicap.

Mr. Alison: My right hon. and learned Friend is drawing our attention to this important document, which is meant to throw light on the path that we have been trying to tread in this complicated debate. The very last sentence of the last annex on the last page of the descriptive brochure issued by the Leader of the House —I refer to annex D—states:
Where the Abortion Act set a limit of 24 weeks or less, ILPA would apply above that time limit and would put the burden of proof on the defence from 24 weeks onwards instead of from 28.
Because my right hon. and learned Friend has himself introduced subsection (1) (a), which specifies 24 weeks as one of the limited options in respect of so-called social abortions, by that very definition the ILPA has become involved on his initiative, exactly as defined in the specification issued by the Leader of the House. So my right hon. and learned Friend cannot complain that by introducing the 24 weeks to the other three subsections we are creating confusion.

Mr. Clarke: The paragraph from which my right hon. Friend is reading is the last of a series dealing with the last two amendments. It raised the question of what would happen if the House voted to decouple the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, and whether it would then be sensible to go on to vote for another amendment to reduce the ILPA to 24 weeks for non-Abortion Act cases. The sentence to which my right hon. Friend referred makes it clear that that would be logical if it were wanted. By general agreement—I remember consulting my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone—we did not move that amendment because nobody particularly wanted to move it, so the sentence deals with a hypothesis in which no one was interested and which was never moved—and which has not been mentioned since. It does not undermine my basic point.
Furthermore, turning to the page on which my right hon. Friend claims there is a mistake, which deals with exceptions for emergency situations, we read:"no limit (amendment i)". Three sentences below the paragraph about which my right hon. Friend complained we read:


Amendment (f), if carried, would provide that there should be no time limit to the exception on the grounds of grave permanent injury.
If this amendment is carried, the House will have flatly contradicted the two amendments that it passed by large majorities on an earlier occasion. We shall then have to decide what happens next, but I still argue that the House must come to a resolution of all those matters and of the law. Personally, I should continue to go for 28 weeks in the case of handicap to the child. There has been no such operation recently, but we are debating no amendment that would allow us to return to 28 weeks, so, although I lost last time, I should have left the matter there.
I do not agree with a reduction to 24 weeks when there is a risk of grave permanent injury to the mother. If doctors are dealing with a mother who will suffer grave permanent injury if her pregnancy is continued, I cannot believe it moral to make it illegal to terminate her pregnancy while doing everything possible to save the life of the child.
The House was right before; I await the judgment of the House on a free vote later tonight.

Mr. Alton: Four amendments are before us, and before dealing with amendment No. 4, the most controversial, I should like to support the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who spoke to amendment No. 28, which would give the House the chance to make case-specific the recommendations made by a doctor carrying out an abortion, so that we can clearly know in future debates whether an abortion has been carried out for seemingly trivial reasons.
There have been disagreements about whether abortions have occurred for reasons such as club foot, cleft palate or harelip. I suppose that to some extent we all rely on our postbags and anecdotal evidence. In one case where the child is my godson, it was recommended that the mother should have an amniocentesis test for the following child because the first had been born with a cleft palate. When she asked why she should have the test, she was told that it would be irresponsible not to do so. The woman, who is a constituent of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), was then told that she would jeopardise the pregnancy if she did not proceed with the test. Of course the opposite is the case, because amniocentesis carries a 3 per cent. risk of a spontaneous abortion.
9.45 pm
The fact that a doctor would put pressure on a mother to have such a test is reprehensible. The fact that he tried to justify it by saying that an earlier child had been born with a cleft palate and that therefore the next child might have some disability shows the route down which we have gone. It is the eugenics route, a justification of abortion on the ground that in some way the baby may be born disabled.
Anyone listening to our debates and to debates outside would think that the vast majority of abortions were for disability reasons. That is not true, because 98 per cent. of all abortions are on perfectly healthy children and even 92 per cent. of late abortions are on perfectly healthy children and the disability issue does not arise.
Amendment No. 28 would at least require the nature of the disability to be specified, and it would end this argument once and for all because each year we could table

parliamentary questions asking the Secretary of State about the returns for that year and we would know the precise reasons for abortions.
Amendment No. 29 was tabled by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and concerns the drug RU486. The Secretary of State for Health said that the amendment would pave the way for RU486 and would avoid the need for the House to return to the subject if it so wished. Anyone would think that RU486 was not available in Britain but that is not the case because trials have been undertaken and it is significant that the clinic chosen for the trials is in my constituency.
Clinical trials have shown that in most cases it is also necessary to administer prostaglandin. The pill has side effects such as incomplete abortion and severe bleeding in the mother. It has been suggested that the mother is more likely to suffer from post-abortion trauma after delivering a complete but dead baby. If the amendment is accepted, RU486 will become available.
It is worth bearing in mind that there has been some wide-scale experience in France. The French medical journal of 30 April says that Roussel, the company which manufactures RU486, has sent a circular to abortionists in France telling them of one heart attack and another cardiac anomaly that have occurred in a woman after she had undergone an RU486 abortion.
The company also reported knowledge of more than 3,000 further cases of less serious side effects and said that women must be assessed for risk of cardiac problems before taking the drug, that the procedures in use must be tightened, and that resuscitation equipment must be available and ready for use wherever the drug is administered. We all know that in private clinics such facilities are rarely available.
Let us be clear about the area that we are entering by paving the way in the manner that the Secretary of State has suggested. Amendment No. 30 also stands in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury; it deals with selective reduction. We often use euphemisms in debates to disguise what we really mean. The Lancet recently published a letter which suggested that the term "selective reduction" might be politically unacceptable to the House and suggested that it would be better to use the phrase "pregnancy enhancement".
We should be clear what selective reduction means. It means that, where there is a multiple pregnancy with too many foetuses, or where one is thought to be handicapped, the surplus or handicapped babies can be removed. A doctor using ultrasound to guide the needle stabs the heart of one of the babies and injects potassium chloride. That is usually carried out at nine to 12 weeks gestation, but in some cases—the House has already had drawn to its attention tonight the case of the King's college baby—at 27½ weeks' gestation. Not years ago, but this year, a baby was aborted at 27½ weeks' gestation. That case is currently the subject of a police inquiry.

Mr. Key: It is precisely because of the unclearness of the law at present and precisely because there is enormous dispute in the medical and the legal professions that I am seeking, through the amendment, to clarify the law so that the medical and legal professions know exactly where they stand. We cannot go on ducking those responsibilities.

Mr. Alton: That is precisely the point that I am making. The hon. Gentleman wants us to make legal what I believe


the House should outlaw because it is wrong. At 27½ weeks' gestation, the King's college baby was aborted because it was one of twins which would have been infertile for the rest of its life. In no way was that a life-threatening disability or a handicap.

Ms. Primarolo: That is not true.

Mr. Alton: It is true. I shall give the hon. Lady further details.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Such an abortion would have been illegal if it did not comply with the Abortion Act. What my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is saying is that the abortion being graphically described by the hon. Gentleman must comply with the Abortion Act. I will not comment on the particular case, but anything of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is decribing would be unlawful.

Mr. Alton: The very reason that the Secretary of State describes is a disability. If that disability is given as the reason for an abortion, it will be perfectly legal to selectively reduce using the handicap provision right the way up to birth unless amendment No. 4 is carried this evening. Therefore, it is all the more imperative that we consider amendment No. 4 in the context of the new amendments that have been placed before the House for consideration only today.
It is vital that we reverse the bad decision that was taken. Whether that was the result of confusion or whether the House knew the reason for it is immaterial. The whole point of a Report stage is so that we can reconsider matters after we have pondered them. But in the context of the other amendment on selective reduction, it is even more important that we ensure that, right the way up to birth, there is protection for the child that might otherwise be removed.
In opposing amendment No. 4, various arguments have been placed before the House. One was that the letter from Professor Finnis and Dr. Keown was in some way misleading. My right hon. Friend referred to the first part of the letter, which says that abortions would be allowed until birth in a wide range of cases, markedly altering the existing law which allows the destruction of a viable foetus only to save the mother's life. Let us be clear that that is precisely what the House has authorised by uncoupling the Infant Life (Preservation) Act from the Abortion Act which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) put in place in 1967. We ensure that a perfectly viable baby of, say, 23 weeks' gestation would have to be saved. Under the terms of what the House has agreed, that would no longer be the case.
The Scottish question has constantly been thrown in tonight as though that is a reason why, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) and the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, we in some way or other should not ensure that the law does the most to maximise the protections and safeguards for the unborn child. I took the trouble to speak to the Scottish Office during the passage of my Bill. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act did not apply in Scotland but other provisions did, and it is worth bearing those in mind.
The then Solicitor-General, responding to the Corrie Bill, as it was known, in 1979, explained the law as it applied in Scotland. He said in Committee on that Bill:
In Scotland the medical operation by surgery is essentially an assault if it is not cured by proper medical care

and proper medical motivations. The motive must be a proper medical motive in the proper circumstances. The law governs late abortions.
So the law was different in those circumstances.
In this country, abortions are not regarded as an assault. Also, there are joint committees of the BMA, both Scottish and English, which together have drawn up guidelines that have been applied in England, Scotland and Wales throughout the years. The Secretary of State's own Department issued guidelines to every Scottish hospital saying that, for the purpose of common practice, the law as it applied in the rest of the United Kingdom would apply in Scotland as well. As far as common practice is concerned, the ILPA is effectively de facto applied in Scotland, even though de jure it is not.
No medical bodies have ever suggested that there was a need to extend the limits relating to handicaps. To permit handicap abortions up to birth would be unnecessary and barbaric, and an insult to handicapped people. If a normal baby counts as human and is protected in the last two months of pregnancy, why should not a handicapped baby be protected as well? Whatever our views on abortion, we must surely accept that a child is human at birth and must become human some time before birth. Clearly we would be saying that handicapped or disabled babies, simply because they were handicapped, were not human. Can we allow a situation in which some babies are cared for in incubators from 24 weeks or even 22 weeks, while others are deliberately killed as non-persons at any time up to birth?
Before the House reaches a decision on this life-and-death matter, I plead with right hon. and hon. Members to bear in mind what it is that we are being asked to authorise if we were to reject the excellent amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Selby. One of two methods would be used to abort such babies because they would be so well developed. From 18 weeks gestation, a baby is not a blob of jelly or a lump of tissue but a foot in length, pumping 50 pints of blood a day. Every single one of its organs is in place. Those are the facts of life and death. What we would then allow to happen would be downright barbaric.
A prostaglandin abortion, such as that which occurred at Carlisle general hospital on a baby of 21 weeks gestation, having a skin disease that was in no way life-threatening, involves the insertion of urea, a poison, which left that baby to struggle in that hospital for three solid hours before it was placed in a black sack and incinerated. That is the kind of thing that we allow even under the law as it is tonight in the case of a baby of 21 weeks gestation.
What is it that we allow in the case of dilation and evacuation, which is the other method used in late abortions? The baby's skull is crushed and its spine is broken. It is removed piece by piece. From seven weeks' gestation, no anaesthetic is used. An eminent immunologist, Dr. Peter McCulloch, has said that a baby of seven weeks will be writhing in agony and can feel pain. Let people be clear what it is that they are being asked to authorise.
The right hon. Member for Selby is trying to ensure at least what was the status quo. I plead with the House to vote for that amendment, because it will safeguard the handicapped baby from 28 weeks' gestation. I plead with it also not to allow selective reduction without at least giving it further consideration. I plead with the House to


look again at the question whether we should require a handicap to be notified on a form in advance of an abortion being performed. That is a perfectly commonsense proposal and one that ought to unite everyone across the divide. With those words, I am happy to support the amendment of the right hon. Member for Selby.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), have said that the amendment is unnecessary, and that we are covering the same ground within two months. There was a lot of confusion last time, and if the last vote is upheld, I shall regret it deeply, and believe that the House is profoundly mistaken, but at least it will have been proved that that was what the House wanted.
We are dealing with a Bill which has not accomplished its passage through Parliament. It is entirely proper and utterly right that the House should have the opportunity to speak and to vote again on this most profound and most important of issues. So let no one say that what we are doing is wrong. Let no one suggest that we are in any sense abusing the procedures of the House, because we are not.
The Report stage of a Bill is designed specifically for the purpose for which we are using it tonight. I urge hon. Members to bear that in mind as they go into the Lobby.

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [2 April] and the Resolution [20 June], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 229.

Division No. 254]
[10 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alton, David
Churchill, Mr


Amess, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Amos, Alan
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F' rest)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cormack, Patrick


Ashby, David
Cummings, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baldry, Tony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Beggs, Roy
Devlin, Tim


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Douglas, Dick


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Bob


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Durant, Tony


Benyon, W.
Eggar, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John Q.
Evennett, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fallon, Michael


Bowis, John
Favell, Tony


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fearn, Ronald


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brazier, Julian
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bright, Graham
Fookes, Dame Janet


Buckley, George J.
Fox, Sir Marcus


Budgen, Nicholas
Franks, Cecil


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Galloway, George


Canavan, Dennis
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Cash, William
Gow, Ian


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)





Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gregory, Conal
Oppenheim, Phillip


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Paice, James


Grylls, Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hague, William
Parry, Robert


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hanley, Jeremy
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hannam, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H' ll Gr')
Pawsey, James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hay hoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Pendry, Tom


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powell, William (Corby)


Hill, James
Price, Sir David


Hind, Kenneth
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B' wd)
Reid, Dr John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G' dford)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hume, John
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rowlands, Ted


Hunter, Andrew
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jack, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Janman, Tim
Shelton, Sir William


Jessel, Toby
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sillars, Jim


Kennedy, Charles
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kilfedder, James
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


King, Roger (B' ham N' thfield)
Speed, Keith


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lang, Ian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Latham, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stokes, Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lightbown, David
Sumberg, David


Lilley, Peter
Summerson, Hugo


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McCrea, Rev William
Temple-Morris, Peter


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maclennan, Robert
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


McNamara, Kevin
Tracey, Richard


Malins, Humfrey
Trippier, David


Mallon, Seamus
Trotter, Neville


Mans, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marlow, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Walker, Bill (T' side North)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wallace, James


Mates, Michael
Waller, Gary


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moate, Roger
Watts, John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Whitney, Ray


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Widdecombe, Ann


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W' shawe)
Wilkinson, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Murphy, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Neubert, Michael



Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Norris, Steve
Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, William





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Arbuthnot, James


Adley, Robert
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Alexander, Richard
Armstrong, Hilary


Allason, Rupert
Ashton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)






Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Barron, Kevin
Harris, David


Beckett, Margaret
Haselhurst, Alan


Blair, Tony
Haynes, Frank


Blunkett, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Boateng, Paul
Henderson, Doug


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hinchliffe, David


Boswell, Tim
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Bottomley, Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr' th' m)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boyes, Roland
Hood, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brown, Gordon (D' mline E)
Howarth, Alan (Strat' d-on-A)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howells, Geraint


Buchan, Norman
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hoyle, Doug


Butler, Chris
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Callaghan, Jim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Illsley, Eric


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Ingram, Adam


Carr, Michael
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cartwright, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clay, Bob
Key, Robert


Clelland David
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kirkwood, Archy


Cohen, Harry
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Coleman, Donald
Knowles, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Knox, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lambie, David


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lawrence, Ivan


Couchman, James
Leighton, Ron


Cousins, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cox, Tom
Lewis, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Litherland, Robert


Darling, Alistair
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Q. (Stamt'd &amp; Spald' g)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie


Davis, Terry (B' ham Hodge H' l)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Dobson, Frank
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Stephen
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Eastham, Ken
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf' d)
McKelvey, William


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
McLeish, Henry


Farr, Sir John
Madden, Max


Fatchett, Derek
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maples, John


Fields, Terry (L' pool B G' n)
Marek, Dr John


Fisher, Mark
Marland, Paul


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Flynn, Paul
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maxton, John


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Meale, Alan


Foster, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foulkes, George
Miscampbell, Norman


Fraser, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Fyfe, Maria
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gardiner, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


George, Bruce
Morris, M (N' hampton S)


Gill, Christopher
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mowlam, Marjorie


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mullin, Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
Nellist, Dave


Goodlad, Alastair
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gould, Bryan
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ground, Patrick
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David





Patchett, Terry
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Patnick, Irvine
Steinberg, Gerry


Pike, Peter L.
Strang, Gavin


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Straw, Jack


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S' ford)


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Rhodes James, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Richardson, Jo
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Riddick, Graham
Tredinnick, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Turner, Dennis


Rogers, Allan
Walley, Joan


Rooker, Jeff
Ward, John


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N.


Ryder, Richard
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wells, Bowen


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, Sir John


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Short, Clare
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W. (Carm' then)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Winnick, David


Smith, C. (Isl' ton &amp; F' bury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Soames, Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Soley, Clive
Mrs. Teresa Gorman and Mr. Frank Doran.


Spearing, Nigel



Squire, Robin

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: A member of the Government has to move any further amendments. I have taken soundings. It would help the House, Mr. Speaker, if I moved formally all three of the remaining amendments, one by one.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Ten o'clock.

Amendment proposed: No. 30, in page 20, line 4, at end insert—
'(4) In section 5(2) of that Act, for the words from "the miscarriage" to the end there is substituted "a woman's miscarriage (or, in the case of a woman carrying more than one foetus, her miscarriage of any foetus) is unlawfully done unless authorised by section 1 of this Act and, in the case of a woman carrying more than one foetus, anything done with intent to procure her miscarriage of any foetus is authorised by that section if—

(a) the ground for termination of the pregnancy specified in subsection (1)(d) of that section applies in relation to any foetus and the thing is done for the purpose of procuring the miscarriage of that foetus, or
(b) any of the other grounds for termination of the pregnancy specified in that section applies".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 166.

Division No. 255]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Adley, Robert
Barron, Kevin


Alexander, Richard
Beckett, Margaret


Allason, Rupert
Boateng, Paul


Allen, Graham
Boswell, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Peter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Armstrong, Hilary
Boyes, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brown, Gordon (D' mline E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)






Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hogg, N. (C' nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hood, Jimmy


Buchan, Norman
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butler, Chris
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat 'd-on-A)


Caborn, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Callaghan, Jim
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howells, Geraint


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Carr, Michael
Hoyle, Doug


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Illsley, Eric


Clay, Bob
Ingram, Adam


Clelland, David
Jack, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Harry
Johnston, Sir Russell


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Key, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon John
King, Roger (B' ham N' thfield)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Couchman, James
Kirkwood, Archy


Cousins, Jim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cox, Tom
Knowles, Michael


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Leadbitter, Ted


Darling, Alistair
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Q. (Stamf' d &amp; Spald'g)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Terry


Davis, Terry (B' ham Hodge H' l)
Lightbown, David


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Dorrell, Stephen
Livsey, Richard


Eastham, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf' d)
Lord, Michael


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Loyden, Eddie


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Farr, Sir John
McAllion, John


Fatchett, Derek
Mac Kay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McKelvey, William


Fields, Terry (L' pool B G'n)
McLeish, Henry


Fisher, Mark
Madden, Max


Flannery, Martin
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Flynn, Paul
Maples, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marek, Dr John


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul


Forth, Eric
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Foster, Derek
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Foulkes, George
Mates, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Maxton, John


Fraser, John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fyfe, Maria
Meale, Alan


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


George, Bruce
Miscampbell, Norman


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Morgan, Rhodri


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, M (N' hampton S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morrison, Sir Charles


Goodlad, Alastair
Mowlam, Marjorie


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mullin, Chris


Gould, Bryan
Nellist, Dave


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
O'Neill, Martin


Hanley, Jeremy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hargreaves, A. (B' ham H'll Gr')
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Harman, Ms Harriet
Patchett, Terry


Haselhurst, Alan
Patnick, Irvine


Haynes, Frank
Pike, Peter L.


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Henderson, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hinchliffe, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Rathbone, Tim


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim





Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Richardson, Jo
Temple-Morris, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Rogers, Allan
Thurnham, Peter


Rooker, Jeff
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tredinnick, David


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Joan


Ryder, Richard
Ward, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N.


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Sheerman, Barry
Wells, Bowen


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Short, Clare
Wheeler, Sir John


Skinner, Dennis
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, C. (Isl' ton &amp; F' bury)
Wilkinson, John


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Strang, Gavin



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mrs. Teresa Gorman and Mr. Frank Doran.


Taylor, John M (Solihull)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Alton, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Amess, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Amos, Alan
Freeman, Roger


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
French, Douglas


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Gale, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gardiner, George


Beggs, Roy
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beith, A. J.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bell, Stuart
Gow, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bendall, Vivian
Gregory, Conal


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Benyon, W.
Ground, Patrick


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gryils, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hague, William


Blunkett, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harris, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bowis, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hill, James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hind, Kenneth


Brazier, Julian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bright, Graham
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Burns, Simon
Hume, John


Burt, Alistair
Hunter, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Irvine, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Janman, Tim


Cash, William
Jessel, Toby


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Churchill, Mr
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F' rest)
Kennedy, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Kilfedder, James


Cummings, John
Knapman, Roger


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lang, Ian


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Latham, Michael


Day, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Dixon, Don
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Douglas, Dick
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dover, Den
Lilley, Peter


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Tony
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Evennett, David
McCrea, Rev William


Fearn, Ronald
Macfarlane, Sir Neil






Maclennan, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


McLoughlin, Patrick
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


Malins, Humfrey
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Mallon, Seamus
Shelton, Sir William


Mans, Keith
Sillars, Jim


Marlow, Tony
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speed, Keith


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stevens, Lewis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W' shawe)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Murphy, Paul
Summerson, Hugo


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S' ford)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Teddy (S' end E)


Norris, Steve
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


O'Brien, William
Thornton, Malcolm


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Paisley, Rev Ian
Trippier, David


Parry, Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wallace, James


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Pendry, Tom
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Price, Sir David



Redwood, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Reid, Dr John
Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 29, in page 19, line 42, at end insert—
'(2A) After section 1(3) of that Act there is inserted—
(3A) That power under subsection (3) of this section to approve a place includes power, in relation to treatment consisting primarily in the use of such medicines as may be specified in the approval and carried out in such manner as may be specified, to approve a class of places".'—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 141.

Division No. 256]
[10.28 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Butler, Chris


Adley, Robert
Butterfill, John


Alexander, Richard
Caborn, Richard


Allason, Rupert
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carr, Michael


Armstrong, Hilary
Carrington, Matthew


Ashton, Joe
Cartwright, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chapman, Sydney


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Barron, Kevin
Clay, Bob


Beckett, Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cohen, Harry


Blunkett, David
Coleman, Donald


Boateng, Paul
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Boswell, Tim
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boyes, Roland
Couchman, James


Bradley, Keith
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Gordon (D' mline E)
Cox, Tom


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Cryer, Bob


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Darling, Alistair


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Q. (Stamf' d &amp; Spald' g)





Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Dorrell, Stephen
McLeish, Henry


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf' d)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Maples, John


Farr, Sir John
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Marland, Paul


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fisher, Mark
Mates, Michael


Flannery, Martin
Maxton, John


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Forman, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Foster, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Franks, Cecil
Morris, M (N' hampton S)


Fraser, John
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fyfe, Maria
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gardiner, George
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Nellist, Dave


George, Bruce
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
O'Neill, Martin


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Patchett, Terry


Goodlad, Alastair
Patnick, Irvine


Gould, Bryan
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hanley, Jeremy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hannam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Harman, Ms Harriet
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
Rhodes James, Robert


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Riddick, Graham


Henderson, Doug
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Rogers, Allan


Hinchliffe, David
Rooker, Jeff


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ruddock, Joan


Hogg, N. (C' nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hood, Jimmy
Sedgemore, Brian


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howarth, Alan (Strat' d-on-A)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sheerman, Barry


Howells, Geraint
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hoyle, Doug
Short, Clare


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Janner, Greville
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Soley, Clive


Johnston, Sir Russell
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Key, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Straw, Jack


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Knowles, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lambie, David
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Leighton, Ron
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Thurnham, Peter


Lewis, Terry
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Litherland, Robert
Tredinnick, David


Livingstone, Ken
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Livsey, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Walley, Joan


Loyden, Eddie
Ward, John






Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wilshire, David


Wareing, Robert N.
Winnick, David


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Wood, Timothy


Wells, Bowen
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Worthington, Tony


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wheeler, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wiggin, Jerry



Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilkinson, John
Mrs. Teresa Gorman and Mr. Frank Doran.


Williams, Rt Hon Alan



Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Alton, David
Irvine, Michael


Amess, David
Jack, Michael


Amos, Alan
Janman, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jessel, Toby


Ashby, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Beggs, Roy
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Beith, A. J.
Kennedy, Charles


Bell, Stuart
Kilfedder, James


Bellingham, Henry
King, Roger (B' ham N' thfield)


Bendall, Vivian
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lang, Ian


Benyon, W.
Latham, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bowis, John
Lilley, Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian
McCrea, Rev William


Bright, Graham
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Buckley, George J.
Maclennan, Robert


Budgen, Nicholas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burns, Simon
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Malins, Humfrey


Canavan, Dennis
Mallon, Seamus


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Mans, Keith


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Marlow, Tony


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F' rest)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Cormack, Patrick
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Monro, Sir Hector


Day, Stephen
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W' shawe)


Dixon, Don
Moss, Malcolm


Douglas, Dick
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Dover, Den
Murphy, Paul


Dunn, Bob
Neubert, Michael


Durant, Tony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Evennett, David
Norris, Steve


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fearn, Ronald
O'Brien, William


Fookes, Dame Janet
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fox, Sir Marcus
Parry, Robert


Freeman, Roger
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


French, Douglas
Patten, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Pawsey, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gow, Ian
Pendry, Tom


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Ground, Patrick
Price, Sir David


Grylls, Michael
Redwood, John


Hague, William
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Harris, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hay hoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Shelton, Sir William


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Sillars, Jim


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hill, James
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hind, Kenneth
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sumberg, David


Hume, John
Summerson, Hugo


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)





Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thornton, Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Trotter, Neville
Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. Frank Field.


Wallace, James



Watts. John

Question accordingly agreed to.

'(2A) After section 2(1) of that Act (notification), there is inserted—
(1A) Regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section—

(a) may require a certificate to include such further particulars relating to any opinion certified as the regulations may prescribe,
(b) shall require any certified opinion falling within section 1(1)(d) of this Act to include an opinion as to the nature of the physical or mental abnormalities from which there is a substantial risk that the child would suffer if it were born, and
(c) shall require the practitioners or practitioner concerned to send a copy of any such certified opinion as is referred to in paragraph (b), and of any such further particulars relating to that opinion, solely to the person to whom they are required by regulations to give notice of the termination,
and for the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section such a copy is information furnished pursuant to the regulations.".'.[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 197.

Division No. 257]
[10.41 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Alton, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amos, Alan
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Dixon, Don


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Douglas, Dick


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Beggs, Roy
Dunn, Bob


Beith, A. J.
Durant, Tony


Bell, Stuart
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fallon, Michael


Benyon, W.
Fearn, Ronald


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Flynn, Paul


Blunkett. David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Franks, Cecil


Bowis, John
Freeman, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Gow, Ian


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butterfill, John
Ground, Patrick


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grylls, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Hague, William


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cash, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F' rest)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.






Hill, James
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hind, Kenneth
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pawsey, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hume, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Price, Sir David


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Irvine, Michael
Redwood, John


Janman, Tim
Reid, Dr John


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kirkwood, Archy
Shelton, Sir William


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sillars, Jim


Lang, Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Latham, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lawrence, Ivan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stevens, Lewis


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sumberg, David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Summerson, Hugo


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCrea, Rev William
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Taylor, Teddy (S' end E)


Maclennan, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Malins, Humfrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Mallon, Seamus
Tracey, Richard


Mans, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wallace, James


Moate, Roger
Waller, Gary


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Monro, Sir Hector
Watts, John


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Moss, Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Murphy, Paul
Widdecombe, Ann


Neubert, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Norris, Steve
Worthington, Tony


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Frank Field and Mrs. Ann Winterton.


Parry, Robert



Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Adley, Robert
Buchan, Norman


Allason, Rupert
Caborn, Richard


Allen, Graham
Callaghan, Jim


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Carr, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cartwright, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Chapman, Sydney


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Beckett, Margaret
Clay, Bob


Boateng, Paul
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Boswell, Tim
Cohen, Harry


Bottomley, Peter
Coleman, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bradley, Keith
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Brown, Gordon (D' mline E)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Couchman, James


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Cousins, Jim


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Cox, Tom





Cryer, Bob
McKelvey, William


Currie, Mrs Edwina
McLeish, Henry


Darling, Alistair
Madden, Max


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maples, John


Davis, Terry (B' ham Hodge H'l)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marland, Paul


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Eastham, Ken
Mates, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Maxton, John


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Meale, Alan


Farr, Sir John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Miscampbell, Norman


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fisher, Mark
Morgan, Rhodri


Flannery, Martin
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Sir Charles


Forman, Nigel
Mowlam, Marjorie


Forth, Eric
Mullin, Chris


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fraser, John
O'Neill, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gardiner, George
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Patchett, Terry


Gill, Christopher
Patnick, Irvine


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Pike, Peter L.


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Goodlad, Alastair
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Rhodes James, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Richardson, Jo


Harman, Ms Harriet
Riddick, Graham


Haselhurst, Alan
Rogers, Allan


Haynes, Frank
Rooker, Jeff


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Henderson, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hinchliffe, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C' nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hood, Jimmy
Sheerman, Barry


Hordern, Sir Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Short, Clare


Howarth, Alan (Strat' d-on-A)
Skinner, Dennis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howells, Geraint
Smith, C. (Isl' ton &amp; F' bury)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Squire, Robin


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Illsley, Eric
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Ingram, Adam
Steinberg, Gerry


Jack, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Janner, Greville
Straw, Jack


Johnston, Sir Russell
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Key, Robert
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Thurnham, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Knowles, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Lambie, David
Walley, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Lewis, Terry
Wells, Bowen


Lightbown, David
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Litherland, Robert
Wheeler, Sir John


Livingstone, Ken
Wiggin, Jerry


Livsey, Richard
Wigley, Dafydd


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wilkinson, John


Loyden, Eddie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McAllion, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wilshire, David


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Winnick, David






Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mrs. Teresa Gorman and Miss Kate Hoey.


Young, Sir George (Acton)

The numbers being equal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): In accordance with precedent I cast my vote to leave the Bill as reported from the Committee, and accordingly my vote is with the Noes, so the Noes have it.

Question accordingly negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The last vote symbolised the fact that we have talked ourselves to exhaustion with just five minutes left on the Bill. I should like to thank the officials, doctors and lawyers in my Department who helped me and a number of hon. Members during the passage of the Bill.
The Government introduced the Bill because of the need to have legislation on the important matter of embryo research. The House has always agreed that we need to have a Bill either banning research or regulating it. The House took advantage of the Bill to introduce law reform, and there was general agreement that we should take this opportunity to resolve the outstanding issues on abortion law to demonstrate to the public that we could come to a conclusion and settle the issue for some years.
It has been agreed throughout that once the House had made its clear decision in a free vote on all the ethical matters under consideration, it was our duty to present legislation to settle matters in the country so that the medical profession, the public and all those who hold strong views would know where they stood on these important matters. We have now resolved all the issues on embryology and abortion and I hope that we can end on a non-controversial note by giving a Third Reading to a Bill that is obviously needed to resolve this issue for some time.

Ms. Richardson: I think that this is the first time that I have seen the Whips so mixed up. I suppose that was because we had a dead heat in the vote on the last amendment. There seemed to be some confusion, but there has been understandable confusion throughout the passage of the Bill.
I should like to add my thanks to those of the Secretary of State for Health for the help that his officials have given us in drafting. We are grateful for that. I should also thank the many people on both sides of the argument who have sent us many letters and much information. All our debates and consideration have made us better informed than we were when the Bill started on its way, and that is because of the attention that outside bodies have given to the House. They gave us the information that we needed to make up our minds.
Proceedings in Committee were meticulous, correct and enjoyable and I am grateful to the Minister for Health for her help. I do not think that I have ever had the last word in the House at the closing stage of a Bill. I hope that I shall have the opportnity on future Bills to have the last word again.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), but I too want to have perhaps the last word by expressing my warmest thanks to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government for the way in which they have responded to a point that I made on Second Reading.
Last night the House agreed to amendments to cover a situation which could arise under the Bill whereby the woman who bears a child will always be regarded as the mother except in cases, such as the one that I drew to the attention of the House, where, with the full agreement of the surrogate mother who has a total power of veto, the genetic parents of a child can go to the High Court and ask to be regarded as the true parents—

It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [2 April] and the Resolution [20 June], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 303. Noes 65.

Division No. 258]
[11pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chapman, Sydney


Adley, Robert
Churchill, Mr


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Allason, Rupert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clay, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cohen, Harry


Armstrong, Hilary
Coleman, Donald


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashton, Joe
Cope, Rt Hon John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cox, Tom


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cryer, Bob


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Davies, Q. (Stamf' d &amp; Spald' g)


Beckett, Margaret
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bellingham, Henry
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Devlin, Tim


Blunkett, David
Dobson, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Doran, Frank


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Durant, Tony


Boswell, Tim
Eastham, Ken


Bottomley, Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf' d)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Boyes, Roland
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bradley, Keith
Fallon, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Farr, Sir John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fisher, Mark


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin


Butler, Chris
Flynn, Paul


Butterfill, John
Fookes, Dame Janet


Caborn, Richard
Forman, Nigel


Callaghan, Jim
Forth, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Derek


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Foulkes, George


Carr, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus


Carrington, Matthew
Franks, Cecil


Cartwright, John
Fraser, John






Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fyfe, Maria
Lord, Michael


Gale, Roger
Loyden, Eddie


Gardiner, George
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McAllion, John


Garrett John (Norwich South)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


George, Bruce
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Gill, Christopher
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McKelvey, William


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Madden, Max


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Maples, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marek, Dr John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gregory, Conal
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Meale, Alan


Hague, William
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morgan, Rhodri


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Harris, David
Morrison, Sir Charles


Haselhurst, Alan
Mowlam, Marjorie


Haynes, Frank
Mullin, Chris


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Nellist, Dave


Henderson, Doug
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Norris, Steve


Hill, James
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hogg, N. (C' nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patchett, Terry


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat' d-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L.


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B 'wd)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Primarolo, Dawn


Howell, Rt Hon David (G' dford)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Geraint
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rathbone, Tim


Hoyle, Doug
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Ingram, Adam
Rogers, Allan


Irvine, Michael
Rooker, Jeff


Jack, Michael
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Janner, Greville
Ruddock, Joan


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Johnston, Sir Russell
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Roger (B' ham N' thfield)
Sheerman, Barry


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Shelton, Sir William


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Short, Clare


Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Lang, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Leighton, Ron
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Litherland, Robert
Soley, Clive


Livingstone, Ken
Spearing, Nigel


Livsey, Richard
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)





Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Squire, Robin
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wareing, Robert N.


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wells, Bowen


Stevens, Lewis
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wheeler, Sir John


Strang, Gavin
Wiggin, Jerry


Straw, Jack
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Winnick, David


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wolfson, Mark


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Worthington, Tony


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Trippier, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Waller, Gary



Walley, Joan





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Alton, David
Latham, Michael


Ashby, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Beggs, Roy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Beith, A. J.
McCrea, Rev William


Bellingham, Henry
McNamara, Kevin


Bendall, Vivian
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Benyon, W.
Murphy, Paul


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
O'Brien, William


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brazier, Julian
Parry, Robert


Budgen, Nicholas
Pawsey, James


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Canavan, Dennis
Pendry, Tom


Cormack, Patrick
Powell, William (Corby)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Reid, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Dixon, Don
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Dover, Den
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Dunn, Bob
Rowlands, Ted


Fearn, Ronald
Sillars, Jim


Gow, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood.)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Thornton, Malcolm


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Watts, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hume, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Hunter, Andrew



Janman, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Jessel, Toby
Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. Frank Field.


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine



Kilfedder, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 18th April, be approved. —[Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committee on European Community documents).

VETERINARY MEDICINES

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4228/89+COR 1 and COM(90)135, relating to the licensing of veterinary medicines; and supports the Government's policy that the basis for decisions in this area rests on a thorough, scientific appraisal to confirm the safety of such to protect public and animal health.

VETERINARY CHECKS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8062/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 13th December 1989, 26th March, 27th April and 13th June 1990, relating to veterinary checks in intra-Community trade in live animals with a view to the completion of the internal market; and supports the Government's view that changes in existing arrangements must reflect the overriding need for the maintenance of effective measures to contain serious disease threats. —[Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

Education (Calder Valley)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Donald Thompson: I am here to speak about education in Calder Valley. Were I not here tonight I would have been at a reunion of some of my friends who were educated with me in my constituency. My wife was educated there, as were my children, for most of their school days.
We all receive a constant stream of letters from our constituents on education matters. It might be slightly eccentric, but sensible, to say what I am not going to speak about tonight. I am not going to speak about the William Henry Smith school, nor about Hipperholme and Lightcliffe junior schools and the muddle over its new school building—although I know that the Minister has undertaken to see representatives of both and that Alan Titterington and Terry Webster will be with them.
I am not going to speak about school meals at Riverside, although the governors made an excellent point about the school meals there, nor am I going to talk about annual general meetings at St. Joseph's, and the difficulties associated with them. I shall not talk about the campaign to keep education local. I support it, as I hope my speech tonight will prove to my constituents.
Education in Calder Valley is a complicated web of difficulties which is ensnaring good, dedicated teachers and their pupils. I shall sketch in some of those problems to remind the Department of them. Although Ministers, particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science who is on the Front Bench tonight, have been more than generous with their time, the difficulties should be set out in Hansard so that right hon. and hon. Members can read them here, and at home.
The local education authority in Calderdale runs two distinct and separate systems of education, one in Halifax and the other in Calder Valley. The definition is clearly set out in Calderdale's "Admissions to secondary schools 1987", which describes the pattern of secondary education in Calderdale. It states:
There are two systems of secondary education in Calderdale: the county comprehensive system in the Calder Valley and the selective system in Halifax.
That is reinforced in the document on the reorganisation of Calderdale schools which deliberately alters the present pattern of primary and secondary education in Calder Valley.
The legality of that dual system has been reinforced by correspondence with the Department of Education and Science on several occasions. The two systems are separated throughout the education system, not just at secondary level. Tonight I shall refer to the secondary schools, the junior infants schools, the reorganisation of small schools and the comunity charge in Calder Valley.
First, I set out the ethos of the schools in Calder Valley as I understand it from 20 years' experience in local government. I recently read the comments of an influential headmaster who is a campaigner for what he calls reform. He said:
There is an obsession with standards. We need a broad education for young people who can cope with problems and adapt to change.
He added:
That is what employers want.

He should have added that we also need higher standards in every aspect of learning. He continued with a paragraph about elitist examinations in sixth forms.
The secondary schools in my constituency are comprehensive and cater for 11 to 18-year-olds. They are separated from Halifax by the weight of the local education authority and the Department of Education and Science. Without exception they wish to remain 11 to 18 schools. They do not particularly want to opt out. I can accept a solution to the problems of Calderdale education only if it strengthens those schools and their pupils.
Brooksbank school and Calder high school are deeply rooted in the community and to take away their sixth forms would be an act of educational vandalism. Todmorden is a younger comprehensive school arid hence needs stability, not change. It has discovered that it will soon be receiving more children. Like Todmorden, Ryburn was conceived at the insistence of a Labour Government and improves and expands year upon year. It should be encouraged, not broken up.
The Brighouse secondary schools have already offered the Department of Education and Science a plan for their future. I was consulted on that initial plan, but, to my surprise, I discovered that I had not been consulted on the new paraphernalia of reorganisation for my entire constituency. If the first attempts of the Brighouse secondary school governors are not acceptable to the Department, exploration should continue and be encouraged. It would be extremely wrong to follow a plan to cream off and dilute the best in Calder Valley. The document, named in Orwellian double-speak, "A Way Forward", is not satisfactory for any part of Calder Valley. Its instructed paraphernalia of public notices should be rejected by the Government, and the local authority should be asked to think again. Children in Calder Valley schools should not be disadvantaged to the advantage of others, wherever they may be. Parents are not prepared to accept an experimental form of sixth form colleges, or any other system, just to rectify a self-generating muddle in other areas. We will not make the worst better by making the best worse.
Teachers in Calderdale, of whom I have had much experience, are exemplary. However, they suffer from half-baked schemes. Teachers in my constituency, whatever their backgrounds academically, socially or politically, want the best for their children. It seems to me from the correspondence that I have received that none of them is willing to give up one penny to the town hall in Halifax that should rightfully be given to their schools.
The Secretary of State spoke recently at a conference of head teachers, where attention was drawn to metropolitan districts such as Calderdale, which keep 40 per cent. of their cash at the centre. Mr. David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, echoed the Secretary of State's remarks when he said that he believed that some authorities were abusing this discretionary power and will face parents' wrath. He provided a list of what he called offending authorities. In the metropolitan districts, Trafford came first with 42 per cent., Coventry second with 41 per cent. and, I am sad to say, Calderdale third with 40 per cent. Oldham, Kirklees, Sheffield and Solihull followed hard on its heels. The size of the fish is often governed by the dimensions of the pond. Calder Valley children wish to thrive in a European scene, not in the narrow circumference drawn by anachronistic planners.
I have been fortunate to meet former Calder Valley pupils in the corridors of Europe and to see young men and women who are confident and able. I have visited laboratories and research institutes and have met people with double degrees, such as doctors, who are all confident and able. I have met, and meet regularly, skilled men and women who work modern machine tools who are confident and able. I have spoken to young women working word processors or the most modern sewing machines who are confident and able. I have been served food and drink by confident and able young people. I meet young mothers with perfect children who are confident and able. They are the elite whom we are trying to produce and are active examples of the standards of excellence that are sneered at by that reforming headmaster. They are my constituents. The staff, in whatever capacity, of all Calder Valley schools are striving for nothing less.
Standards originate in primary schools but those schools are being destabilised, first, through the introduction of the Education Reform Act 1988 and local accountability and, secondly, through Calderdale's inability to come to terms with the community charge. I have seen a press report that a community charge of £297 is reasonable. However, in its commentary on the 1990–91 budget the local majority party said that it was levying a community charge that was almost the lowest in England. It also said that next year the Government would add approximately 40 per cent. to the charge, whatever the party did. That kind of misrepresentation has infuriated everybody, including many of my opponents' supporters.
Calderdale has set a community charge of £450, but the bill is £297 on account of the safety net and a low rateable value grant totalling £163, borne by the Exchequer. If we add two other figures to the £450—£292 paid by business and £270, which is the amount of Government support —the gross cost of services amounts to £1,020.
The Government say that that is 5 per cent. too much. The local authority can reduce that figure only by attacking children and the voluntary bodies. I have spoken to the chairman of Calderdale Primary Head Teachers Association. Mr. Wilkinson was wise enough to come to see me last year. With this latest letter he has included a petition signed by head teachers from all over Calderdale. He says that it would be unfair not to say that he criticises the rapid introduction of the national curriculum and other policies, but that if there have to be expenditure cuts they should not be made in the education budget. He says much more than that, but he emphasises that point.
I have also met representatives of the secondary head teachers. It was an honest, open and straightforward meeting. Mr. David Scott is the chairman of the Secondary Head Teachers Association. In a well-documented and carefully thought out letter he says that the local authority should reassess all growth items and all standstill budgets and that there should be an across-the-board reduction in all budgets. The association agrees with the primary head teachers that education in Calderdale should be safeguarded. I agree with all that, but the power lies not with Parliament, or with the Minister, or with me. It lies with local people. They can persuade their locally elected representatives to reassess the education budget.
I have been encouraged by the careful and detailed way in which the governors, managers and head teachers of schools such as Hebden Royd Church of England school have written to me. They say:
The Governors of this school, without any exception, are very much in favour of the concept of LMS, but we do, of course, have grave concerns about the way in which the total resources are being allocated, both nationally and locally".
The headmaster of St. Chad's school wrote to me in November. He said that the introduction of the Education Reform Act 1988 was causing serious difficulties due to the speed of implementation. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has taken note of that criticism. In his letter he said that the staff support the idea of a national curriculum but that they are worried about the pace of reform. He makes the point that, although we should have an improved pupil-teacher ratio, we should also consider the inspector-adviser ratio especially in small areas like Calderdale where the number of advisers must, in proportion to the budget, be higher than in other areas. The headmaster of Cornholme school in Todmorden expressed similar worries in a letter thanking me for a letter from the Secretary of State. The headmaster wrote:
I am enclosing his reply, as requested, which … says nothing about the armies of administrators and inspectors".
The headmaster of Ferney Lee school in Todmorden is also concerned about those problems.
Those concerns are well known to my hon. Friend the Minister and he and his colleagues have been kind enough to reply to my letters. However, the situation has been exacerbated by the Government requesting a 5 per cent. cut by the authority. It is the first duty of local government to implement the objectives set down by central Government. Therefore, I am amazed that people think that the Government's supervision of budgets is in any way new.
I mentioned earlier that some of the comprehensive schools in Calder Valley were built at the direction of the Labour Government with a threat of the imposition of what I seemed to recall were called commissioners if the job was not carried out. Those same comprehensive schools are now being attacked by the same party with the threat of the removal of their sixth forms. I happened to be the chairman of the local education authority when the directives came from the Labour Government to move to comprehensive education. With the support of local people at Ryburn and Todmorden, that is what we did.
In Calder Valley there are ways of achieving the expected reduction of 5 per cent. without a frontal attack on schools. Those means have been available since the local budget was set, but time slips by. The academic year is closing and the hope of continuity at the beginning of September is receding.
Another aspect of uncertainty is the programme of small school closures. My hon. Friend the Minister has a copy of a document produced by Black Hall school which sets out the objections to the closure of that junior and infant school. That document repays careful study and I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to page 17. We must remember that pre-schools for comprehensives have a special and different role from pre-schools in a selective system. The author of that document points out the distorting effect of 40 per cent. to which I have just referred. He believes that a disproportionate amount of money is going to other primary schools in Halifax. On page 17 he states:


If the LEA were to be consistent with their pupil to staff ratios, one particular school would have 179 extra children on the roll with 26·2 teachers"—
the figure for Calderdale is 27, while another school would have—
139 extra children on the roll with 24·7 teachers. It would certainly appear that some larger schools in the authority are being subsidised by the smaller schools.
The author also encloses a petition signed by many distinguished people who have been involved in local education for many years asking that the school in question not be closed.
When my constituents read of the planned expansion of services proposed in a recent local budget, they wonder where that money will be directed. They fear, as the Blackwood document says, that some larger primary schools are being subsidised by some small schools.
Calderdale education is under threat. We can expect the secondary schools to feel undermined. They are undergoing a transformation in the way that money is being allocated and determined locally. We are asked, in all schools, to deal with the problems in the Education Reform Act 1988. Although many people welcomed the Act and locally determined spending, the 40 per cent. provision and the speed of implementation are upsetting them. The people in Calder Valley can do much for themselves. They must—I emphasise the point again—persuade their locally elected councillors, on a one-to-one basis, to alter their targets.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to send back "A Way Forward", to uphold the objections to the closure of small schools and to insist on parity of treatment for all schools in Calderdale with respect to the local management of schools.
I have gone on a little longer than is usual, but I have confined my remarks to Calder Valley. I know that my hon. Friend will say that a great deal is in the pipeline and that he cannot comment because the decision on the community charge is sub judice. However, I know that he has listened. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has also been present for this debate and has listened carefully and courteously.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) on securing this debate. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to offer a few comments on these important issues in the remaining few minutes of this debate. He spoke from the background of his many years of experience as someone who has grown up and lived in the area, who has represented it in local government and who now represents it nationally in the House. He speaks with a passionate loyalty to his constituents and to his area, which all hon. Members greatly respect. He speaks, therefore, with a depth of knowledge and he champions his constituents most eloquently.
My hon. Friend referred to a headmaster who had commented—I believe disparagingly—on the Government's obsession with standards. Yes, we have an obsession with standards, and I make no apology for that. My hon. Friend referred to the confidence and ability of the young people in his constituency. It is our objective, and I know that it is my hon. Friend's objective, that the best educational opportunities should be available to all those young people so that they can realise their fullest

personal potential. That is, of course, an objective shared by members of the local education authority and by teachers in Calder Valley.
When I recently had the pleasure of visiting Calderdale authority, I saw for myself the commitment to standards in the schools, which is shared by parents and by employers. That explains why we have introduced our reforms. We believe that it is necessary to give the best educational opportunities to the young people of Calder Valley and of Calderdale in the 1990s.
My hon. Friend alluded to the feeling of some head teachers who have made representations to him that the pace of reform is fast and that, in some ways, it is almost too fast to manage. We are sensitive to those concerns. It is right that we should press forward and it is right that the reforms should be introduced with a reasonable momentum. However, I stress the word "reasonable" and we are very concerned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has very much taken on board the importance of introducing the reforms at a pace that will prove to be manageable by the good professionals who have the responsibility to deliver them.
My hon. Friend also referred to some anxieties that have been expressed in his constituency about the way in which LMS is being introduced. He was especially concerned about aspects of the formula used by the authority. Our purpose in LMS is to secure the status and pride of the school communities and to ensure that the best use is made of the resources. That concern is rightly shared by those who are members of the education authority. If they have addressed the problem of surplus places, we must accept that concern and commitment.
However, it would be wrong for me to prejudge the merits of the primary and secondary proposals which are under consideration and which will be coming to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his decision. We are determined that there should be the fullest consultation. As my hon. Friend knows, all objections must be gathered in and it is the obligation of the LEA—in the case, for example, of objections to the current secondary education proposals—to forward those objections to us by 3 July. I give my undertaking that we shall give the most careful consideration to a whole range of relevant factors, such as the educational outcome of the specific reorganisation proposals that have been put to us, what the associated costs may be, and the arguments both for and against, including those adduced by my hon. Friend this evening.
My hon. Friend referred with great pride to individual schools in his constituency, including Calder high school. I offer my tribute to the staff, pupils, governors and parents of that school, which I had the honour to visit recently. I was most impressed by the evident commitment to high standards that I witnessed there.
I cannot comment on the proposals and changes that have been put to us, for the reasons that I have already explained. My hon. Friend quoted a headmaster who had observed that standards originate at primary level. I would add that educational standards originate in the home, but I accept the force of my hon. Friend's comments.
It is of the utmost importance that the pattern of primary education that is established in Calderdale should be of the best. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he sought—that the document from Blackwood Hall school will be carefully considered by us.
My hon. Friend alluded to the Government's decision to designate Calderdale for charge capping. As he knows,


that is now in process of formal consideration in the framework of legal constraints and it would be inappropriate for me to comment, except to add that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that he has proposed to cap only the authorities which, by any reasonable standard, are spending excessively.
The length and breadth of this land, authorities have been able to establish education budgets within and around the standard spending assessments and well below

the level which my right hon. Friend has put forward for capping, and which will provide a good service. Although we must await the outcome of the discussions—representatives of the authority have had the opportunity to put their case personally to Ministers—I do not doubt that it will be possible for the structure of education to continue in Calderdale on a basis that secures the opportunities that we all want for the young people of that area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Twelve o'clock.